|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
>
> >ps every method of trading can be tested if it can be defined, and if
> >it can not be defined then it's not a method, it's voodoo.
OM, it is just a way to label things such that it becomes part of MB's
way of structured analysis of trading, no big deal :)
>
> As Al Pacino says (repeatedly) in "Donnie Brasco": "That's not the question."
>
> The question is whether, given the limitations of today's programming tools and market data, it
> is a worthwhile endeavor to attempt to algorithmically define one's art.
>
> Just today there's a man on the list saying that his real-time signals don't match the signals
> that appear when he reloads and reboots. This, something that would seem to be one of the
> simplest of requirements for accurate system trading, has not yet been mastered. We've been
> over this same ground 1000 times on this list.
data is not that bad ... nor the tools are that deficient.
for example, the technical aspect of fine art, specifically in oil painting,
are pretty completely well defined, as one can enter a college to learn all
its "techniques", all the "secrets" of existing most famous drawings.
All these knowledge will enable that person to be able to "comment" on
others drawings "professionally", and this person will probably be able to
draw better than most other people. That's the power of formal training
on mechanicalized techniques (or, in other field, the scientific knowledge).
But that does not enable the person to become a world class "master" painter.
>
> And we just finished a discussion of the limitations of calculation accuracy possible with the
> tools we're using.
>
> And when will be the next discussion of how the data you receive from an EOD data vendor does
> not match the data you receive in real-time? (Think about this. It brings into question the
> entire foundation of "technical analysis".)
>
> The tools are not there yet: the data's not there, and the programming tools are not there.
> Thus, the endeavor to define one's art may not be worthwhile, depending on the complexity of the
> "art".
To be acknowledged as a master, is the business of other people making opinions about
the subject person, it is not something that the person can control himself.
Thus, if mechanical technique in drawing can serve your own purpose,
by all means use it. Because it implies consistency in the quality of the
drawings one creates. If the techniques are good, it probably means
stable income too :)
On the other hand, if the purpose is to create new concepts, take new grounds
for ones own experience, then expect less consistency.
>
> What works in trading, as in life, is an infinite degree of flexibility and adaptability. What
> does not work is a set of fixed "rules". There are no "rules". Accept that and you are on your
> way to success.
>
Now, sunstitute drawings to "trades". Then you know rules are needed and necessary
for better consistency. For the enjoyment of the trading experience on the other hand
one may prefer more discretion.
That is all just what matters to the person who trades.
Different goal, different approach.
=====
Lawrence Chan http://www.tickquest.com
Transform market data into opportunities
|