Hi Volpunter -- You certainly are entitled to your opinion. Why all the anger? I do wonder how you can be so certain that "All the book's content, all to the dot, can be easily extracted for free off the net." And how do you know how the disk files are used and what the alternatives are? What are your thoughts on the distribution of risk-normalized returns? How did you receive and read (448 pages) a copy of the book so soon in order to be able to make insightful comments? I have not received a copy from the first press run yet. The soonest delivery of any copies is later today for orders placed the same day the book was published with express mail delivery. At any rate, your rude and uncivilized posting tarnishes elitetrader and seriously discourages communication and efforts to encourage cooperation among developers of trading systems. I am not the counterparty you need to worry about. Dude. Best regards, Howard Bandy. Yes, PhD. University degrees in Mathematics, Physics, Engineering, and Computer Science. Retired full professor of mathematics and computer science, and university dean. 50 plus years experience in the theory and practice of modeling and simulation. 50 plus years experience in the theory and application of artificial intelligence. 50 plus years experience in development of trading systems. 50 plus years experience in trading -- both personal accounts and as a CTA. Over 50,000 (official) copies of my books in circulation.
(LMAO.) Are convexx? Have some civility, man. His books are the only resources available for a widely used platform.
That is utter nonsense. Python as well as Amibroker has widely published documentations, blogs, user forums, where pretty much anything Amibroker offers is discussed. No need to buy a book. Buying a book about Amibroker is basically the same as buying "the 101 of how to use a vacuum cleaner". If you don't know google it and play with it. Simple as that.
50 years experience in trading? That puts you a bit north of 70 correct? With all due respect to your respectable age, do you think you are on top of Python and the latest developments? With all respect (again) I highly doubt that. There is no anger in the air, I put out simple facts that every last bit of content in your book is broadly and freely available on the net, and not even hidden. I draw conclusions from the publicly available table of contents and parts of free chapters I flipped over. And that is way enough to judge a book, would you not admit that? Otherwise I would suggest you mislead your readers by offering them a glimpse at your book via table of contents and free chapters only to sell something different in the end. * How disk files are used? Like all disk files are used, to store content and to share content. Please do not make matters more complicated than they are. * Risk-normalized returns? This term does not even exist and is at the very least a term not used in the financial community at all. And you know what? A giveaway for snake oil salesmen is when they use scientific sounding terminology that nobody has ever heard: Sound important, sound new, right? In the end what matters is the knowledge that financial asset returns follow a distribution that we humans currently do not have suitable distributional description for. There are distributions whose properties come close to the ones of financial asset return distributions but only close. The biggest issue is that return distributions of financial assets are not stable. So, even using the term "normalized" tells me that you have no clue about what you are talking about because the last thing financial asset return distributions are like is "normal", they are anything but normally distributed. My maybe blunt and direct response may tarnish your book sales but I am not here to diminish your success I am here to make clear to beginners that your book according to its table of contents and free chapters contains zero new information nor anything magical, nothing that is not freely available on the internet. I develop quantitative algorithms myself and if you read any of my posts in the technical forums you would know that I know what I am talking about. By the way, could you please tell all of us where you taught, you said you were a full (assume this means tenured professor) professor AND dean of the mathematics and computer science departments. What university was that? Just wondering because you seem to have omitted that important part of your life completely from your LinkedIn profile. (It only shows where you received your education, an average uni in Ohio). https://www.linkedin.com/pub/howard-bandy/b/b44/270 P.S.: I am not angry, I just have a very short attention span for bullshit.
No clarification regarding your teaching as professor and dean? I thought so...lots of red flags...even a search for your dissertation came up empty handed...
That escalated quickly.. On another note, I use the IB Api with the C# Library they provide now. It works fantastic and has allowed me to roll off of a C# wrapped C++ 3rd party library I was using before. I am currently running a few strategies live on an Azure VM with no issues for the past year.
No escalation, just some facts. And looks like Professor Bandy has some things to hide. Maybe he window dressed his CV? Very much looks like it as we stand (but I wish he would clarify this and post where he taught and which university and department he was dean at). I am just shocked nobody else cares nor does research on people they buy books from and learn about algorithms from. I just happen to not be naive and I question those I chose to learn from and I expect others in the same way to question me about claims I make. I can be held accountable and am ready to explain my rational behind every sentence I write on this website. I also stand ready to openly apologize if I erred on issues and when I am corrected with factual backup. Re IB's C#, I also played with their C# library and like it quite a lot, clean implementation, especially given the fact their library is completely open source. Though I most of the time trade with IB via FIX.
Hi Volpounter -- The postings you have made border on libel and defamation. You have not identified yourself, but you are asking me for details on my professional credentials, and questioning the originality of the material I have published. You state that "I also stand ready to openly apologize if I erred on issues and when I am corrected with factual backup." I call you out to honor that statement and promise. My university degrees are from the University of Wisconsin and Case Western Reserve University. My Ph.D. was granted by Case in 1972. I was founding chair of the computer science program at the University of Nebraska, Professor of Computer Science at the University of Wisconsin, Tenured Professor of Computer Science and Mathematics at Pacific Lutheran University, and Dean for Computing at Pacific Lutheran University. You admit that you have not read my newest book, "Quantitative Technical Analysis," yet you feel free to criticize it and accuse me of plagiarization. The book reports some original research, among which is that you reference as "Risk-normalized returns? This term does not even exist and is at the very least a term not used in the financial community at all. And you know what? A giveaway for snake oil salesmen is when they use scientific sounding terminology that nobody has ever heard: Sound important, sound new, right?" It is new. It is important. I have been describing it in my conference presentations for several years. This is the first complete explanation, with diagrams, charts, formulas, computer code, and outlines for its use. The book does make reference to other research. A quick count shows, in addition to a bibliography, there are some 106 fully attributed and footnoted references to material published by other authors and researchers. There is clearly something else going on in your attack on me, my credentials, my research, my reporting, my book. I hope this response is adequate to convince you that I am who I say I am with the credentials I say I have. Whether my work is of value to you is for you to decide after you have read it and replicated it. You have posted a critical review of my book on the book's Amazon page, again with comments and accusations bordering on libel. I will appreciate you removing that review. Best regards, Dr. Howard Bandy
Please read my comments carefully because I chose each word carefully: * I do not need to identify myself because I am not the one who put out claims about my credentials and I am not the one who published a book where authors' credentials are vital. I asked you several times in a polite way to please back up your teaching credentials and I appreciate you doing so now. Thank you. At least something to work with. I never accused you of lying about your teaching credentials. But I think you can agree and appreciate that when someone lists his education he received in his LinkedIn profile but omits years of claimed teaching experience as tenured professor and as dean then this makes people wonder, no? So I am not sure what I need to apologize for regarding this issue. * I never accused you of plagiarism. I stated that hardly anything in your book is new or innovative. I stand by this claim. Window dressing a book or chapter by creating a new term "Risk-normalized returns" is hardly considered innovative or adding new content. The term is important because you say so? I think a term or more importantly a concept becomes important when it matters and impacts people in the work place and if it mattered then it would be discussed in public domain as well. You state that you have been using this term for several years now. If it mattered and was deemed useful then it would at least be once referenced by someone else, no? I have not seen such via a search. * I have posted a review of what I read and I clearly stated in the review for everyone to see that I have not read the whole book. I stated upfront and honestly how I arrived at the opinion I stated in the "review". I will not remove the review because I think it can stand on its own and readers can judge whether they find it useful or not. Please note that there are several reviewers of your past books who posted reviews and shared their opinion with mine, that your books hardly contain new content, original ideas, but are more a walk-through of publicly accessible and free information via Amibroker code implementation. Last but not least, I do not have any particular anger towards you, I just disagree with how you portray yourself and your books. Fact remains that you hardly post or discuss ideas that are original (your own) and that are deemed by most as being innovative and useful. I am sure there on the other hand some that find it useful. Those can openly speak up and tell the world how your books assisted them. I share my impression and views (and I have come across and glanced over your previous work) and take the right to do so going forward. You have the right to disagree with my views of course. But I fail to see where I have to apologize for wrong statements. But I offer you a deal: Point out a concept that you presented in your newest book that is original (your own) and that you have not previously discussed and I am happy to apologize and take back when I stated that "All the book's content, all to the dot, can be easily extracted for free off the net. ". Fair?