[mslk]

as i have been reading thru the numerous threads about people techniques (phantom, maelstrom, optiontimer, etc), a question always pops in my mind - "is any of this automated?"

if not, is it possible? or does successful trading require more than just programming models into a system? do you need to develop some gut-instinct as well?

- mslk

[Tams]

Originally Posted by mslk »

as i have been reading thru the numerous threads about people techniques (phantom, maelstrom, optiontimer, etc), a question always pops in my mind - "is any of this automated?"

if not, is it possible? or does successful trading require more than just programming models into a system? do you need to develop some gut-instinct as well?

- mslk

if you can articulate your logic in plain English,
you can program it.

[calsprdr]

Originally Posted by Tams »

if you can articulate your logic in plain English,
you can program it.

Sorry Tams, but as a professional programmer with 35 years experience, I can unequivocally say that your statement just is not true.
Of course many systems can be automated. But the problem lies with systems where the signals are not generated by "when X is 2 cents below Y." There are traders I have worked with who can tell me exactly what they are doing and I can program an approximation, but the backtesting blows up because I can *never* find a Z% away from W that adequately captures their "artistic" entries.
I like programming systems but I have never got one to work that adequately approximates how *I* trade. Now that's frustrating!

[zdo]

The mindset of being an automated systems developer is quite a bit different from the mindset of being a discretionary / rule based systems trader. The best system developers I know would consider manual trading to be a complete waste of time. They find a niche edge and become masters of testing and accurately reading performance reports and real time tweaking instead of masters live ‘screen time’ trading.

After a while at it, I finally realized I had to spend months as one, then months as the other to get desired results – but maybe that’s just me. After almost 25 years of trading full time, I still look at some methods and fantasize about automating it but realize how extremely arduous it would actually be to even try – all the while without any guarantees of acceptable results. Been there done that – more than once. Also have been blessed to develop some automation that is still standing the test of tme...

Also, finding a programmer to get into a shared vision with you / really understand what you are trying to accomplish, and make the wholehearted commitment required has odds about like playing the ‘big game’ lotteries. The huge majority of programmers, including most 'do it yourself'ers, can’t even begin to think and code into the uncertainty and fuzziness of varying multiple weights / influence of parameters that is required.

It takes a great deal of work to fully automate most methods – largely because it’s very arduous to correctly program all the parameter fuzzinesses that individual's grayware handles quite a bit more routinely. Basically, the practiced eye can discern and unconsciously use information, but not be able to quantify it in code well enough where it works the same way automated as it does manually for close to the same percentage of signals. Generally most beginners find that code can generally handle setups ok, but anything but the simplest of context conditions can quickly become a very 'disencouraging' activity…

In the ‘distribution’ of methods, the great middle of systems ie analysis methods most traders use are the ones most difficult to automate. Very generally speaking, the systems that can be ‘easy’ to automate are in the tails. Both are ‘simple’ types of systems. They are either in or near the lower win rate tail (think long term trend, etc.) or they are in or near the high win rate tail (think HFT, etc.). The real challenge programmatically for both of these types of ‘easy’ automation is proper risk management. Without automated sizing too, the whole development effort can be a waste, etc etc. … am not jaded and I still love automation. Just trying to be real here

hth

[Tams]

Originally Posted by calsprdr »

Sorry Tams, but as a professional programmer with 35 years experience, I can unequivocally say that your statement just is not true.
Of course many systems can be automated. But the problem lies with systems where the signals are not generated by "when X is 2 cents below Y." There are traders I have worked with who can tell me exactly what they are doing and I can program an approximation, but the backtesting blows up because I can *never* find a Z% away from W that adequately captures their "artistic" entries.
I like programming systems but I have never got one to work that adequately approximates how *I* trade. Now that's frustrating!

then you are talking non-logic... it cannot be coded.

[Tams]

the first step is getting your thoughts in clarity

human mind works in fuzzy logic

computers/languages we have access to works in sequential logic

before you can code anything,
you have to reduce your fuzzy feelings into cold hard facts.

[phantom]

Well said, zdo.

My experience working with my brother, who is a high level programmer, attests to your insights. We've tried, but we just couldn't do it.

I'm not saying that it is not possible.

I am saying that our results were not reliable.

Huge difference.


Phantom

[phantom]

Originally Posted by Tams »

if you can articulate your logic in plain English,
you can program it.

I think the issue here is: Can one articulate one's logic in plain English?

Talk is cheap, Tams.

How about you posting one of your trades where you coded the entry and exit and had the computer bring you a REAL profit?

Otherwise, we can assume you're only playing the Devil's Advocate...


Phantom

P.S. and if you reply with something lame, like, "you can assume whatever you want..." We'll have to "consider the source" from here on out.