because words and terminology and details DO MATTER. I agree with the other guy, you are hardly providing any details at all but want the holy grail.
how did you solve it? You did not outline anything regarding the solution to the problem you posed. A lot of gibberish and question marks, perhaps re-check your initial post to see what I mean.
Your responses have shown you clearly didn't read anything. My humble suggestion is a reading comprehension class. No harm done. Edit:
care to describe in detail how you vectorized your workflow? Example: ES Futures pricing data, 1-minute bars, open/high/low/close/volume. 5 data points for each 1-minute bar. 1 strategy that evaluates each data point, calculates a simple moving average metric and sends out orders when current price crosses over the moving average. Stupid example but I just use it for simplicity purposes. How did you vectorize feeding your strategy with data?
Most retarded post in the technical comments section sofar this year. Congratulations. You clearly show you have no friggin clue what you are talking about.
Nobody follows you around, what for? If I laughed about your retarded posts in several threads then perhaps that has to do with your quality posts or lack thereof? You make some absurd claims and can't even explain them properly. And nobody calls you out on your BS. What has this quant and technical forum turned into. Quality level was worlds better before
Lies. This thread was dormant until your dumbass showed up. Please tell me where I'm wrong in what I said: 80% accurate enough to warrant further testing.
This is your explanation of how you vectorize a backtest. You made it onto my ignore list (only 3 on it so far, so you are special).... ridiculous