All of my automated systems started as manual ones - so the performance is the same for the most part, but the ease of operation is better on a per trade basis. If you have any automated system that can nail 2% to 3% a month or better after operational costs, I would say you have a great automated system.
You would have to be completely nuts not wanting to win. If you ever happen to arrive at a strategy that makes money, you would also have to be completely nuts in giving it away. You obviously failed to grasp these points. In your "love to learn from winners", better realize that most of what you will "find" is written by losers. Better give up on this and start working much, much harder in attempting to lift yourself up out of the sh*t of losing.
My guess is the most important thing should be whether a trading system can be fully translated to a 100% rules-based system.
That's the difficulty I'm facing. My method is quite discretionary in nature. I think I need to find another rule-based method to form my automated system. Does anyone know where I can hear or know more about the performances of the world best automated system?
I disagree. Some people did give out their strategies or trading ideas, sometimes for free too. If it were true, then everything written on trading or investment books are false or fake or useless or losing money. We may not need to learn from books at all.
some things wirtten on trading and investing are useless plus false. After all, welcome to this thread! What do you think about autoamted system.
In my experience for exchange traded securities an automated system is superior to manual. The economies of scale seen with this approach is enormous. You can monitor many markets and executes thousands of trades/hedges and have an operator watch over the system. I know of several market making firms that are almost completely automated. If your goal is exchange traded securities then learn to program and know statistics. If you want to manually trade then go to an OTC market where info and efficiency is not up to par.