I know that people do define noise and that they have to deal with it in their setup based systems. It does not occur to most people that they are building without a foundation. I do not think it is possible for most people to consider a market as a system. Or markets have a common system. When I started in trading (1957), tape reading was common since the only dynamic service was tape. Relays were used and not vacuum tubes or transisters. Probably some of you have worked very hard to learn what you learned. It still does appear to me that an artificial standard is used here to determine credibility. You all seem to mostly link a person's credibility to his performance. Recently, I have seen prints of people who are making a point with a print of a few contracts held for a short duration. I remember looking at tapes and also observing the "tape readers". At that time, I decided to use relays to process the data. When vacuum tubes became used, I switched to card punching and using "instructions". So what happened to those judging my "prints". I didn't hand any out but they were observable by others. The financial industry has never had integrity to speak of and that is a priori in this thread, too. Its just part of the space. So I have had the experience of becoming "unbelievable" in the finacial industry and times haven't changed. The thing that made me unbelievable was what the people concluded as they watched my performance through viewing all the records my trading created. I do not wish ill will to anyone trying to learn about markets. I do try to avoid arguments with those who are uninformed or who are having trouble reasoning. I appreciate how unnerving it can be for a person who reads my stuff and doesn't understand my point. For whatever reason, I lucked out from day one. A lot of people got wealthy when their brokers let them immitate me. Today, the minimum would have been 20 points in ES per contract so far. There are 81 bars in a day. I do use 78 of those bars for trading. Logic man apparently thinks I use 81 in a mysterious way. He believes something is mysterious but which is just a matter of fact about how long RTH's are in 5 minute bars.. I smile and do not think about helping logic man anymore. I announced that the foundation of markets is two hypotheses in a complete set. And I explained the requirement of the set to be "workable" for doing measures. The measures are parametric measures. PM's have character too. A system of setups fails simply because the system is below par in its chrcterisitics. Logic man and others explain their subpar dilemma over and over and do not get what their "solution" represents. I can see that the SE is not understood either. It's commentator had the same problem in his quoted misjudgement. SE came from reasoning about relationships of the pieces of a system. Deduction was used; induction was NOT used. Will Higgs allow gravity to be added to the string? Why has it been so illusive to not make it possible to include gravity. Maxwell did well when he used orthogonal fields. To get the market's HS, you have to use orthogonal HS's. The Parametric Measure is even more elusive. think of how limiting it is to be in an up/down orientation and NOT be able to have greunds define the parametric measures. You want to see my print. What you NEED to see is the complete record keeping set for the SQL appplication of a RDBMS. There is no noise, no flaws and no anomalies. Read that conditional statement again. And try reading it when you have the notion that I am correct. Can anyone in this thread take a differential without using time? Markets do NOT involve continuous functions. When you have a complete Hypothesis Set of two parts (like kind) and the Parametric Measure is in the form of a gerund, then you have to make RELATIVE Data Base measures. Can you see that all pairs of like-kind data set elements fall into only two sub sets where the elements are limited by one and one one market factor: granularity. Do a what if? What if you could read and understand what I am saying? If a person could and they were mentally equipped to think resonably, it is absolutely true that they could deal with all possibilities using Carnap's logic theory. If the granularity is causal, then all market behavior is in the bag. That is all market behavior is systematizable. It also follows that you know that you know BEFORE the moment change Hypothesis is about to occur. What is most interesting of all is WHY no one can make the effort to polish off how market's work. Here, that proof of why not is offered by the minds of the participants. They think one print would make the mystery (mystery to them) be solved and credibility would come to the fore. (there are many published prints as a matter of fact. Others beside those here have been through the proof (this is a casual term involving "prints"). They concluded what they saw going on was "unbeleivable". Where "unbeleivable" means it is outside of any extreme but yet reasonble "BOX". So the world just keeps turning.
Hi Turd/Hershey/diarrhea. I posted an scalping log with entries and exits a while back with 100% winning trades. You can search for it. I have posted dozens of swing trades, before the fact, with entries and exits, in public, in this board, in several markets, the last one in the face of Larry Williams. I have witnesses in this board. But...I'm not teaching anyone how to do it. Why not is obvious. I challenge you to post one scalping-trading-swing-whatever timeframe BROKER LOG that breaks even for one session. Put up or STFU already posting about stuff that is hundreds of IQ points above your pay grade. Your turn. I'm not holding my breath.
Been there done that. Why would anyone who has seen my posts even consider searching for my broker stuff. The third party reviews were good too. Sorry, I do not have any day long stuff that is BE. As far as I know I only did better than Gary Smith, he said, by 800K for one day's net. Dr Zeus calls it biggering.....lol...
... 1 is idiotic. Thanks for confirming your newbness. I have between 10-50, but I don't understand the df calculation because it isn't as simple as adding up your buy and sell conditions and no, there is no single indicator system that works. There are 2-20 core indicator dfs, about 20 money management df's. Another part of this absurdity, logic_man, is that there is also consideration to the quantity of data. 5,000+ datapoints for intraday data is another component to the DF count. Too many DF's will not ever disappoint, but could in real time, this is called statistical fit, as opposed to robust fit. Which is to say the model may produce a positive result, however, clearly the paths it chose to make its decisions were quite a bit less than optimal, and, at this point, since I know you either don't trade, or do trade but have never created an algorithm, this next point about the amount of data is probably a lot more relevant and difficult to passify your anxieties especially about the quality of data from any datasets you might find. No. Coding robust models has more to do with how "robust fit" it is versus statistical fit. It can be statistically fit maybe even with the same parameters that produce the "robust fit" but when you go to examine efficiency, either via sharpe, return on drawdown, APD, there's nearly always at least 1 or 2 generations in a 1000 population size 250 maximum generation elitist genetic optimization where there is absolutely no doubt that those are the best parameters. If you find your genetic optimizations producing a lot of the same results at the high end your model is statistically fit, and not robustly fit. When it's robustly fit, you can make 1,000+% ROA in practically any market you have data for, and even if you may have some generations with more profitable results, if you see the spike of the 3 dimensional spherical frontier and find the "spike" in ROA. I mean, you'd have to be a dumbass to think producing that result could ever be done by 1 indicator. No, it's done by at least 10 df's, and is not possible for 1 indicator to ever produce the efficiency that I have now in coding and genetic optimization. One day I might show the frontiers of my Sentinels, but if you don't get that the spike in ROA/SHARPE/APD/ETC could only be made by a multiple DF system, there's something wrong. You do not understand the question or the solution, and may just be looking for attention.
Sounds like you are grasping at a lot of different straws in the hopes that something will work because you really have never had a logical insight into market fluctuations. That's one approach. I take a more "philosophical" approach, deconstructing a trend into a beginning, middle and end, each with its own logical structure. My hard-coded parameter pertains to the beginning of a trend. When that hard-coded condition is met, the likelihood of a new trend beginning is high. Think of my approach as an analysis of the "Platonic ideal" of a trend beginning. Just as Plato said there is an "idea" of a chair or a tree or a stone which encompasses all actual chairs, trees and stones, so there is an "idea" of a trend. It doesn't encompass all actual trends, but it encompasses enough of them to provide at least 75-100 trading opportunities per market per year. If you can handle monitoring 4-5 markets, that's 1-2 trades per day with very good accuracy. For my taste, that's sufficient. And I didn't say one "indicator" at all. "Indicator" is not synonymous with "parameter", although indicators can and do use parameters to provide their readings. As for not "understanding the question", I don't think the question is the same for every trader, except insofar as the objective is to have a positive expectancy system. Some people think the question that needs to be answered to accomplish that objective is X and others think it's Y. If both are accomplishing the goal, they are both correct in some way. From your answer, you approach the question in a way that is common, so you will always be competing with a lot of people. You really don't think you are the only person who's doing "genetic optimization", do you? I, on the other hand, am almost assuredly the only person doing what I'm doing, so I have no competition. At least you can use some off-the-shelf trading software for your trading, whereas I had to build everything myself in Excel because it was so different. When I enter the terms "genetic optimization trading" in Google, I get 8.5 million hits. When I enter the term I made up for my system, I get 0. Even the few hits that are tangentially related implement the core idea in a way that's laughably simplistic. So, I've hardly got any competition using my techniques. So, I am actually very willing to admit that I don't "understand the question" in the way you do, nor do I want to. I go my own way.
Oh! In that case you base the number of degrees of freedom on google hits, huh? A little more logical than the single synonymous terms "parameter"/indicator/etc. Sorry, I admit those terms must have 8.5 million hits therefore that must be the number of degrees of freedom. Ah, When you want to google terms that don't exist anywhere on the net but where I am, try: Capital Management Arbitrage Risk Management Arbitrage Pairs Trading Arbitrage Price Physics Arbitrage Quadratic Projector Quadratic Projector Statistical Arbitrage (Battlechest probably has hits) War Hammer War Master God Nexus BTW, these are trademarked. There, let me know how many degrees of freedom there are, and get back to me when you've used your simple mind to google these terms and find they don't exist unless I am mentioned in the vicinity or links to those sites where the typical ranting psychomaniac will post a 3-5 page libelous piece of literature directed at me. Apparently google determines the df's guys! Better start counting!
Obviously, "parameter", a term which is used across numerous disciplines, will have more Google hits than "genetic optimization trading", which clearly attempts to narrow the field of inquiry down to something more manageable. Even a moment's thought would reach that conclusion. I guess I didn't make it plain when I said I wasn't interested in understanding your version of "the question", but I'm really not. It's obvious that we're operating on two different levels. You want to say you are operating at a level "above" me, feel free. My point is that you only need a single parameter to sit at the core of your system. I know this is true because that's what I've got and it works. When I've read your posts about your "genetic optimization" in the past, I've always kind of laughed at how hard you seem to work for results that seem to be no better than what I get with my one simple model. I reason that this is because my simple model is just a better representation of the market than your humungous model. Such is life. We can't all be good at abstracting the simple out of the complex.
My strategies at the tick level use the solution to the Prisoner's Dilemna I learned from Game Theory, and don't ever think you'll have maths worth billions because excel will not ever be able to compete with my supercomputers or my ECN. Anybody using excel to trade with their broker doesn't know what they're doing. You know, unless you have bid/ask data and added base commission only the amount of slippage that might be in your hypothetical backtest is in question, and unless you've collected datasets, in which case maybe excel's the only way to work GDB ascii files in winzip, then it is not just that I'm on a higher level, but that anybody but the higer up C-level executive is probably the only people I will ever speak to, so, yeah. It's not that I think I'm on a higher level, but that I already I know I am, and being condescending about it doesn't help the utter irrationality of not using Multicharts or Strategy Runner.