http://www.rtsgroup.net/ Click on the right where it says "Algorithmic Trading Webinar". It's interesting (and relaxing) even though it doesn't sound like a webinar with people who would write on this forum, or engage in automated trading (the way it is meant on this forum). I remember hearing, at the start of the webinar, something about two different definitions of "algorithmic trading". The "New York" definition which means automating the mere execution of big orders. Then you have the "Chicago" definition, which means market making and arbitrage (which means automating decisions as well). I think there's a third definition missing, which is the one I use. They talk about my definition of "algorithmic trading" when, at minute 28-29, they speak of "back-testing", which is the only way "algorithmic/automated trading" is meant here on this forum. When they talk about "back-testing" they seem very knowledgeable and precise, but only from a theoretical point of view, in the sense that it seems they never tried it. After the first 30 minutes, you should start falling asleep. I was reminded of a post by someone a few days ago, speaking of the "big boys" vs retail traders. He was saying "if the big boys can't do it, then why do you expect to be able to do it?". But I think he was wrong. Also other people said he was wrong. But in general I am getting the idea that these "big boys" don't know anything about back-testing and automated trading (the way we mean it here). Or maybe the ones who know about it keep quiet? Because on the web all I can read and see from the "big boys" never has anything to do with our concept of trading systems. Also, someone was saying in another post - it's natural for a retail trader to make 50% per month, whereas the big boys will only make 20% per year because they have to move around bigger capitals (with all the consequences). It sounds reasonable and it sounds like what actually happens (whether because they have big capitals or because the big boys are also dumb). But do you agree that it doesn't sound reasonable for the average investor to give his few 1000s of dollars to a fund manager (and make 20% a year if he's very lucky) rather than to a retail trader? I realize that maybe retail traders are not even allowed to trade other people's money. I am just wondering. If anyone has ideas let me know.