|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Mark Brown <markbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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.
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.
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".
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.
All the best,
OM
|