Psychologist beats mathematicians - MUST READ

Discussion in 'Educational Resources' started by nitro, Mar 19, 2008.

  1. nitro


    "This Psychologist Might Outsmart the Math Brains Competing for the Netflix Prize

    At first, it seemed some geeked-out supercoder was going to make an easy million.

    In October 2006, Netflix announced it would give a cool seven figures to whoever created a movie-recommending algorithm 10 percent better than its own. Within two weeks, the DVD rental company had received 169 submissions, including three that were slightly superior to Cinematch, Netflix's recommendation software. After a month, more than a thousand programs had been entered, and the top scorers were almost halfway to the goal.


  2. ssblack


    Cool article, thanks for the link nitro.
  3. nitro


    YW. Enjoy.

  4. gehko


    Well...he hasnt technically beat them yet, by the numbers anyway...but it seems a bit like philo farnswirth vs RCA. I like the word groupthink though...very fitting. Nice article. I think i am going to start a new chapter in my marble lab book called Psychologicomputing.
  5. bespoke


    Very cool. Bellkor is much like me I guess. Psychologist with a math/programming background. Funny thing is, my most profitable trading strategy is based on a model I did for my thesis a couple of years ago. Signal processing and bayesian learning for mate selection. Who ever knew what you did in school could be applied to trading :D
  6. nitro



    Amazon has me pegged. I buy their book recommendations 100 fold more likely than any other of these recommendation programs.

  7. Same here
  8. eagle


    This discovery does not surprise me at all. Because based on the finding of modern research that human brain has two hemisphere, left and right, which their function is for Logical (fact, math) and for Intuitive (emotion, psychology) respectively. Then I suppose, if I understood well of this modern finding and if their finding was true, the BellKor used massively the left hemisphere while Potter used massively the right hemisphere of the brain. We need to use both somehow!!!!!

    Again who know? Investing may work well using the left hemisphere (Warren Buffet), while Trading may work well using the right hemisphere (Jesse Livermore). Just my opinion ok!!!!!!!!
  9. Actually, It doesn't turn out like you think ; it turns out like you think.

    Nitro in another thread gave a fighter pilot example. He was Stating the OODA model which Steenbarger advocated. In that thread I had previously cited OODA as a dead end.

    It doesn't turn out to be what you wrote here above. How you think is what is important. Elsewhere people are posting about modelling and they are advocating using analogies that are based on science. (the thread's OP is a mathematical psychologist who has design pilot environments.)

    While Avi Kiev, a sports psychologist has turned to training and coaching traders, he uses more of a pep talk approach that is the emotional equivant of OODA.

    All of these near misses could have been much improved, if it weren't for the fact that they all avoid dealing with how the human (and other fauna) mind works.

    When a trader's experience gets to a certain point, he reads all that is written from a different vantage point. the specific vantage point is that of a person who is using the equivalent of "sports memory".

    Avi does not coach athletes in an orientation of aquiring sports memory competitive capabilities, nor does he do that for training traders. Steenbarger does use OODA (originally used to inculcate feedback type reasoning in fighter pilots). But trading has no connection and is not an analog for being a top dog type trader.

    The key aspects of the mind to consider when going to either manual excellence or automating trading is the relationship of the conscious and the unconscious and secondly how the physical matter of the mind grows over time.

    There was a huge fake out that was observablein the 80's when, mistakenly, it was figured out to build NN's, BA's and the like to simulate the neuron based operation of the mind.

    Here in ET we see a pilot cockpit designer who is a mathematical psychologist continuing down that road. Nitro does hundreds of edges progarmmatically in the same vein and shops then to the unaware since his blow up a couple of Decembers ago.

    What if we built a cockpit for a trader and used the conscious/unconscious mind operation model? This would automatically all "plasticity" of the brain to be constantly applied 24/7. The OP rates my posts as gibberish and my prints as photoshopped.

    But the fact is I am looking at trading from a successful expereince in trading that allows me to trade using sports memory and I have years and years of demonstrated increased brain mass (My next test session is 2:00pm, Monday).

    When anyone listens or speaks, each of these processes originates in the unconscious and the person is totally unaware (consciously) of what happens before he actually speaks or in the other cases, listening, what actually happens before he consciously is aware that he has finished processing what he heard.

    Trading uses the sense of sight rather than sound as above mentioned. What IF a trader were sitting in the optimum environment like a fighter pilot does and he was a sports trader as I am. I am a glider pilot who does acrobatics. This is not a bullshit commentary here.

    Focus on how the brain can have mass added to it (see the word radial glial fiber) as a consequence of completing an unconscious/conscious repeated sequence that put the person's brain at a functional level where sports memory rather than what you do to trade (just think of how difficult it is for you to call the market 3, 5 or 10 minutes ahead and do it flawlessly) is happening.

    You intake per second is 10,000 units consciously and 20,000,000 units unconsciously. Your unconscious is what is not working for you at this time. Mine is. however.

    An automated system has to operate in a manner that parallels the unconscious/conscious operation of the mind in a brain.

    How a sports memory trader's eyes rove around the guages and dials of the cockpit is about firsat on the list to begin to understand. I know from experience that I would have to talk at four times the rate it is possible for a person to speak to be able to convey what I am sensing (unconsciously/consciously) and hwat Iam analyzing and what I am deciding and what behavioral actions I am taking.

    So as you can now see the problem is setting up the cockpit to have the ability to fly. The visuals in the cockpit are important to have be complete and convenient and supreme.

    at night when you sleep your brain through its "plasticity" grows so that when you wake up every once in a while you have AHA's. All of these are not because you sat and thought something up. They come from your brain reorganizing while you rest and then from your unconscious occasionally yoiu develop a consciousness of a particular thing.

    When people tell Nitro there is still a tinge of his blowup in his posts this week, they know what they are talking about. I know why Nitro feels that my prints are photoshopped and my writing is gibberish in his opinions. Most people find my performance statements unbelievable and astonishing. At 6:30 yesterday and today, my narrations were not. We did disscuss those nice 5 pont-5 point-5 point trades going into the first range expansion long (around 12) of the day and just how indicators on ES are level 3, indicators on YM are level 2 and the OTR/DOM/S/S combo carves the level 1. The same will happen at 6:30 am on Monday during the conference call.

    If you get a cockpit then you get to sense. If you get to sense and purposefully monitor, you get to have a finite set of data subsets. If you have a finite set of data subsets you get to pair them with corresponding elements of a finite set of analysis results where in each and every case there is absolute certainty that the pair is an absolute truth.

    At this point, you are able to make decisions. Mine ar made unconsciously since I have the two afore mentions finite sets and I also have their pairings as absolute truths. I am armed to do one of five decisions: HOLD. REVERSE, Enter. exit or wait. I do not do ant enrty, exit or wait when I am in the cockpit. Allen hobbs refers to my cockpit as a clusterf@#%.

    I use about 7 elements in a monitoring subset. I do not sweep the display for less and I have many many more than 7 to choose from. I have about 70 degrees of freedom and I have steered and focused on a particular subset. (see the attached sweeps charty in nine colors).

    What does it come down to to know that you know? I must know (by analysis) whther the P, V relationship is in one state or another (there is no probability involved since it is an LED on or off state (although the two states are NOT opposites)) and the market Sentiment (only two opposites, in this case so the LED is on or off). I either HOLD or REVERSE,

    Using sports memory I do one thing all day long. There are only 20 to 40 exceptions.

    How did I get to sports memory and become so different than people who blow up or who can only make 1 pointt a day long term average.

    How can Steenbarger get Greenspoon to the OODA state whereby he makes less than a tick per contract per trade. He is just a few dollars above not making any money per trade on average.

    Maybe by reading this you, momentarily, can be in another place than that place you are used to. What if you knew that manual trading can be done without thinking? What made it possible were finite sets in my mind. I spent the time to grow parts of my brain physically so I colud have the circuitry there to use. At some point where I operated in my brain changed from one collection of places to mostly my frontal lobe. You only need a RAM to trade if you deal with CERTAINTY.

    I feel that from reading posts, a lot of people operate in two incompatible states mentaly: outside the market looking in or inside the market trying to escape. For me an exit (your thing) and an entry(your thing) are identical (for me, not you) and that tool is called a reversal. Lets say a person is a scientist and a computer programmer. How would he use his math trading to take the limit of an exit and find out that there is the same answer at that non-stationary time called an entry?

    It takes a while to "get it". Aftter you get it for a while, you discover that you are sitting in a cockpit and not thinking but you are carving every profit taking segment that presents itself.

    Take a chart of a day and see how fast ou can get from one side to the other by using a crayola to zig zag it. Make sure volume is on the chart. Use each hand to zig zag price and volume on the 5th chart you do. Do 50 more by Monday. Its like shearing sheep, you double your time after the first 25. And you learn to plunk them down pretty hard so they don't move until you so indicate. I'm a Sunbeam man myself and 3 and 1 is my choice of oils.

    Not much of my trading life was supported by electronics but those things were finally invented. When they were I could have a cockpit to sit in. At some point real time data began to appear and so did languages for making software.

    I couldn't find the sweeps chart..
  10. Is there perhaps an indicator I can use to interpret Jack's posts?
    #10     Mar 20, 2008