|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Hello chris,
Saturday, February 28, 2004, 10:05:19 AM, you wrote:
cd> One last comment from me on this topic- The only people that I know that are
cd> making striaght out amazing - reliable money auto-trading are using software
cd> that they 'built with parts'. This is not a 'heresay' thing- it is the
cd> truth. It is not for everyone of course- but then again; neither is success
cd> :)
cd> -Chris
>>From: Ivo Karindi <ivo@xxxxxxxxx>
>>Reply-To: Ivo Karindi <ivo@xxxxxxxxx>
>>To: "RB" <rhodes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>CC: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re[7]: QuantStudio demo available
>>Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 13:00:48 +0200
>>
>>
>>R> Maybe, you were explaining your trading software wrong with the
>>building it
>>R> with parts email. At least I hope so.
>>
>>No, I was correct. ;) But obviously, when following this thread, QS
>>is not a product for everyone and I certainly hope that not all
>>traders will be flocked to it now (sorry Joel). Like you said, you don't
>>see many cars
>>around that have been built from individual parts. However, think of
>>Formula 1, race cars, Daytona, even BugFests etc. If your end goal was to
>>go fast(er),
>>would you find this kind of performance on the dealer's lot?
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Ivo Karindi
>>
>>
there are many other factors which have an affect on making money auto
trading. computer equipment, data feeds, fiber optic connections,
order routing, clearing cost, location of your operation, the ability
to reason with and being valuable to the clearing company as a
customer of size so they will want your business and to service you.
first very few can ever get past all the above let alone be brilliant
enough or have the experience enough to have a profitable trading
method that can be implemented precisely enough to be dependable. be
cautious that structured learning does not equal brilliant. a computer
science degree or any other does gains no respect from the markets. if
anything it may actually be a detriment. see the archives the dumb ass
doctor. ;)
i have found that while there is some gain from extreme complication,
that gain is quickly given up often because now there is more to go
wrong. the supposed big boys who supposedly make tons of money, i have
found are often about as technically dumb as they come. take for
example the initials ptj and his supposed guru td [trademark] he he.
ptj did his own program called ranger and where is it now? he sold it
and he went back to ndr technalyzer which uses a scripting language
called tel. so with all that money there is one example of a counter
argument against building your own platform.
most wannabe developers can't even get the optimization routine to
perform properly let alone discover some whammo trading system that
works. it seems like a good project for people who would rather
develop than apply methods to make money trading. i call it
development hell, i have been there myself and have the scorched brain
to prove it. it's an ugly place where time is lost and the real world
becomes blurred with an electronic existence. the belief that with
just some more code, you can discover what no one before you has ever
accomplished. while the facts are that all the great advancements of
mankind were created by such a small number of original thinkers that
a number to represent that minuscule percentage would be impossible to
display in this email.
now what would be the odds that an experienced trader, who can program
his own stand alone product, could be an original thinker and have
profitable trading algorithms? just remember experience alone does not
mean success, many tradesmen have experience but few are journeymen at
what they do and still fewer invented the very methods they employ.
yet to hear many on this list talk, everyone is capable of such. if so
this list has to be renamed the quant mensa miniscule einstein list of
original thinkers.
mb
--
Thank You,
Mark Brown
www.markbrown.com
|