|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "RB" <rhodes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 1:17 AM
Subject: Re: QuantStudio
>
> Kevin,
>
> You are probably right about the ones you are talking about. I was
mainly
> talking about traders. It really doesn't matter what software a good
> trader uses.
That would be true if you were comparing softwares that both accurately did
their work. The fact of the matter is that Tradestation is so full of bugs
that it actually misleads traders, good or bad.
> They can use pencil and paper and do OK.
It would be INFINITELY better to use pencil and paper, assuming the analysis
was done with care, than to use buggy software. If I had a buggy stethoscope
and that was my only tool, and I needed to find out if the patient was
healthy or not, I would be better off using traditional methods to asses the
health of my patient than something that was going to give me bogus answer.
But no doctor would dispute the use of a working stethoscope over less high
tech means.
>For myself and most
> traders that I personaly know, they have there system, methods etc. and
> could use any (easy to use trading software ;-) and trade.
You keep mising the point. You are FAR better off not using a tool if what
it is telling you is innacurate. Tradestation can be used for charting,
drawing trendlines, finding support and resistance, and many many other
wonderful things. It is when you start using it as a SYSTEM TESTING Platform
does it become a danger to your pocket book.
> Most good traders can even do OK with the simple web charts on the net.
Again, not listening to the message. No one is debating the charting
capabilities of TS, or that good traders can make money without any
software, for example, floor traders do it day in and day out. The question
is, IF you are going to use software, are you better off using one that
gives you accurate representation of what is happening in realtime, or one
that isn't.
> I
> myself use TradeStation 2000i and basicly use the same method I used over
15
> years ago
> I am sure I could just as easily use metastock, or many of the others, but
I
> will probably never change, because what I have now handles my stuff just
> fine so there is no need to learn new software to use and old method. :)
> I don't really know or use the full capacity of TradeStation.
> Don't get me wrong. We need new ideas, new software etc. And I would
even
> possibly try some new software if I could use my easy language stuff with
> it. Not that easy language is greatest or that TradeStation is the
greatest.
> It is because that is what I have and use. :)
Tools like QuantStudio is not meant for you, at least not in their current
form. I have yet to see BACKTESTING sofware written for the "masses" that
does a good job. I have seen lots of proprietary good ones.
Like I said in a previous post. If QS ever gets it's act together, perhaps
in the first time in the history of commercial software will there be
something as powerful as what Hedge Funds with big pocket books have access
to.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Sven Berg" <ksberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 5:48 PM
> Subject: Re: QuantStudio
>
>
> > RB,
> >
> > I think the auto analogy is a poor one, unless you're willing to admit
> that
> > instead a car, you're riding a bicycle.
> >
> > There is a market for traders and firms that demand much more than
offered
> > by TradeStation (the GM equivalent). Where is the interchangeable,
> > integrated portfolio management? Where is the interchangeable,
integrated
> > position sizing? Where is the interchangeable, integrated,
cross-portfolio
> > risk management? Can I do deep, multi-market quantitative analysis? Can
I
> > intermix multiple, dissimilar data sources and vendors? Does it route my
> > trades into an accounting system? Does it do trade aggregation and
> > separation for unitized accounting? Can I automatically route orders to
> the
> > broker of my choice? And on, and on, and on ...
> >
> > While there are a number of after-market bolt-ons for TradeStation, the
> > level of integration is often clumsy. The whole PushPop or global-access
> > DLL route is an example of trying to work around platform limitations.
At
> a
> > certain point, it makes sense to examine alternatives.
> >
> > Excellent traders wield an edge. There is a whole market catering to
> > traders who seek and create an edge using advanced tools. There are also
> > trading firms that demand more out of a trading engine. For all these
> > traders, most of the popular trading packages just don't cut it.
> >
> > Actually, I'm very encouraged by the recent direction in trading
> platforms.
> > WealthLab starts to incorporate many of the items I mentioned above, and
> > VeriTrader 2.0 looks to be a very exciting product as well.
> >
> > Still, there's nothing like having a custom tool set that can actually
do
> > what I need :-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> > ps. This is NOT an endorsement for QuantStudio, only a consideration for
> > QS-like tools.
> >
> >
> > At 03:37 PM 2/27/2004 -0800, you wrote:
> > >Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:34:35 -0800
> > >From: "RB" <rhodes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >Subject: Re: Re[5]: QuantStudio demo available
> > >Message-ID: <009701c3fda3$6955c0b0$482d730a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >Content-Type: text/plain;
> > > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > >
> > > Why put a company in that position?
> > > Nobody would build a car that they use everyday from parts!
Everybody
> will
> > >buy a car ready to go.
> > > Having and selling parts is big bussiness if you have parts to fit
> Fords,
> > >GM, Dodge, Toyota, Honda etc. But having and selling parts to fit
> nothing,
> > >or something you have to build in the first place, seems to be a very
> poor
> > >bussiness model.
> > > If a company wants to sell trading parts? Why not sell parts that
fut
> and
> > >go with all the trading software that is now available and used
everyday?
> > > Why sell parts for something, that you have to build yourself? May
be
> OK
> > >and you may end up with a great trading package that everyone will
want.
> It
> > >just seems that it is the wrong model and way to get things that most
> > >traders will want and use.
> > > In other words. I ain't going to build no car from nothing with
parts.
> > >And if you look around, you won't find many cars built that way.
> > > Maybe, you were explaining your trading software wrong with the
> building it
> > >with parts email. At least I hope so.
>
>
|