or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by NameBack

Yeah, I am wondering if this is the right take on the situation, or if it really is possible to do better out the gate. We keep getting tantalized with offers of something bigger but which so far have yet to materialize. Do I hold out for the ideal, or do I take the MetLife offer and work my way up a more traditional path, and appreciate it for what it is?And, in fairness, I was mainly disappointed because we had sort of been led to believe that they were going to offer us...
Well, MetLife meeting was a disappointment. We had been led to believe that they were interested in setting us up with an RIA under their umbrella and basically helping us fill it with clients -- instead they pretty much just offered us entry-level money manager jobs. Could be a good way to build up experience and in a couple years could start paying solid (but not extravagant) salary, but it's definitely not an offer to fund the algorithm; it's a job offer, and not...
Thanks for the well wishes guys; and I don't think anyone hates on me here exactly -- just a lot of people are very skeptical, and there's nothing wrong with that. Always good and healthy to be skeptical when it comes to trading and trading strategies. Looks like it might just be a good day after all. This is why I don't trade except on my algo -- my gut is rarely right.
Alright everyone -- cross your fingers for us! We go in tomorrow for a meeting with a multinational insurance company's financial advisory division about possibly setting up an RIA under their umbrella and getting our hands on a respectable amount of money to manage. It also looks like a hedge fund in Texas may again be interested in us for a prop trading account with them, and should hopefully be getting in touch with us soon! Still up about 11% on a 9 position streak --...
Well, it would be pretty shabby of us not to, considering my partner is a Masters in stats. Must've been one horrible graduate program.
Unfortunately I don't know C or other real programming languages -- I bootstrap my way through life, pretty much. And that formula was the most efficient way I could think of to do what I was trying to do. It basically looks at four parameters, and according to those parameters constructs one of 48 possible formulas. It sort of takes the "building blocks" of the 48 formulas and stitches them together into a whole formula.
I mean, people say this, but I'm honestly not sure what they mean, exactly. I mean, yeah, if I used slipshod methodology and arbitrary tweaks I could make tons of systems that "backtest" well, but that backtesting would be statistically invalid, because it would essentially be a problem of validating on the same data that you trained on. It would be "designing for the past" which is poor methodology, and not what we did.Here's what I mean when I say we have great...
Hey, I've always maintained that we have a perfectly plausible chance of failure -- I'm not an idiot. But when you have great backtesting -- why not try it out in the markets and see if it works? Worst outcome, you lose the cash you put in, best outcome, you make a lot of money. Therefore, put in what you can afford to lose and see what happens. It's a simple calculation. What's your counter-advice? Don't bother and just invest in index funds?
New Posts  All Forums: