|
Vzhig, Yes indeed.
Your post has very valid point.
So I clarify myself that my comment was not related to Pete’s system but his statement only:
“The system, which adapts to various market conditions, is more effective and more consistent than a live trader, has the ability to make more calculations and better assessments of the market faster and more accurately than a live trader, and has no emotion”
…and I’d be glad to discuss this statement but will be out of the original subject.
I’m not aware of D.E. Shaw nor Renaissance co and will research this topic. Thanks for sharing, you gave me some work to do.
I don’t totally negate the system effectives. I personally know a successful trader who trades the system many years and yes, he’s up.
But let me ask you a question,…
When the system is idle or loosing (drawdown) a few months in a row, would you continue to keep it running?
Even you are convinced 99% of effectives of your system would you continue using
It when your capital is at critical tolerance level?
He does
Here you go its human effect again.
I said chess to compare computer vs human. Chess is a game of strategy and calculations, that computer should easy win. It doesn’t.
The special program designed only for Kasparow took more space then WinXP operating system and the bets were in millions of dollars.
Unlike chess, the market is a living form of nature. We don’t need to be a genius to understand it. If we focus on systems, we’ll never get close to it and will never understand…how simple it is, indeed.
Simplicity is the key issue and can open hidden door. We are to sophisticated these days and rely on computers too much forgetting these are tools only to make a life simpler not more sophisticated.
The Titanic sank because was too big size not because of waves or hit by iceberg.
You could easy raft a hand made Kayak along with him having more chances to survive.
Kind regards,
Pan
|