jamesbeale
Recruit
- Messages
- 5
I have only recently come across forexpeacearmy.com, and I'm glad I did.
This review of StrategyQuant Genetic Builder is very good as far as it goes, and timely for me. I've known about StrategyQuant genetic builder for some time, but have hesitated to buy into it, and felt that a 2 week trial period was really just a waste of my time.
What puts me off it was the very thing to which Pharaoh referred early on as a strength. Even with the "coding power of a few hundred thousand code monkeys that can all type very fast" I really wondered if the production of truly worthwhile EAs was possible in any meaningful time, without the intervention of luck.
A little searching on Google and you'll discover this website: Infinite monkey theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scroll down the page a bit, and under "Random document generation" you'll see the following:
The universe isn't that old. Indeed, it will take the power of a new generation of quantum computers to be able to process something like this, even then... who knows how long? I don't!
This is not encouraging. It doesn't leave much hope for me with my silicon variant, even if it is suped-up and running extra fast Linux. But, of course, I assume I'd need Windows for Genetic Builder...
Mark Fric (StragegyQuant author) will counter that Genetic Builder is using considerably fewer variables. But there is a very large number of possible combinations. Again, Mark will no doubt say, but we are focussing down to certain knowns, and the Genetic Builder builds on what it finds to be good, thereby being somewhat Darwinian in its approach. But again, if we do focus down on some knowns, we may miss out on that truly spectacular left-of-field EA that no-one could have predicted. And a Darwinian approach can also end up in a cul-de-sac, such as the dinosaurs were. It took a meteor to budge them, to let us get a look in.
To my mind, the impression I have from reading Pharoah's (and others) excellent work here is that they haven't stumbled upon that amazing EA, or even a series of pretty good ones all adding up to amazing. Indeed, if Mark Fric had, I think he would have closed StrategyQuant down by now, saved himself the bother of dealing with users and be cruising the Mediterranean, or in some other way be a non-dom tax exile on a mega-yacht. Or if he is already, then he is truly altruistic to be dealing with the likes of me!
However, before the reader goes off thinking I'm completely blinkered and sarcastic, I think that Genetic Builder is an excellent concept. I also believe, mostly from my reading here, that it is well put together and supported by Mark. All credit to him. I'm also not saying I won't at some stage buy into it. I might. But there again I'd have as much chance of winning the National Lottery this year, sometime, with the money not spend on Genetic Builder as finding that elusive EA.
But please do - someone! - tell me I'm wrong. I'd like to think I am.
I'd like to finish by saying three things:
Most important of all, have fun!
This review of StrategyQuant Genetic Builder is very good as far as it goes, and timely for me. I've known about StrategyQuant genetic builder for some time, but have hesitated to buy into it, and felt that a 2 week trial period was really just a waste of my time.
What puts me off it was the very thing to which Pharaoh referred early on as a strength. Even with the "coding power of a few hundred thousand code monkeys that can all type very fast" I really wondered if the production of truly worthwhile EAs was possible in any meaningful time, without the intervention of luck.
A little searching on Google and you'll discover this website: Infinite monkey theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scroll down the page a bit, and under "Random document generation" you'll see the following:
One computer program... had worked for (the equivalent of) 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years (when) one of the "monkeys" typed, "VALENTINE. Cease toIdor:eFLP0FRjWK78aXzVOwm)-‘;8.t" The first 19 letters of this sequence can be found in "The Two Gentlemen of Verona". Other teams have reproduced 18 characters from "Timon of Athens", 17 from "Troilus and Cressida", and 16 from "Richard II".
The universe isn't that old. Indeed, it will take the power of a new generation of quantum computers to be able to process something like this, even then... who knows how long? I don't!
This is not encouraging. It doesn't leave much hope for me with my silicon variant, even if it is suped-up and running extra fast Linux. But, of course, I assume I'd need Windows for Genetic Builder...
Mark Fric (StragegyQuant author) will counter that Genetic Builder is using considerably fewer variables. But there is a very large number of possible combinations. Again, Mark will no doubt say, but we are focussing down to certain knowns, and the Genetic Builder builds on what it finds to be good, thereby being somewhat Darwinian in its approach. But again, if we do focus down on some knowns, we may miss out on that truly spectacular left-of-field EA that no-one could have predicted. And a Darwinian approach can also end up in a cul-de-sac, such as the dinosaurs were. It took a meteor to budge them, to let us get a look in.
To my mind, the impression I have from reading Pharoah's (and others) excellent work here is that they haven't stumbled upon that amazing EA, or even a series of pretty good ones all adding up to amazing. Indeed, if Mark Fric had, I think he would have closed StrategyQuant down by now, saved himself the bother of dealing with users and be cruising the Mediterranean, or in some other way be a non-dom tax exile on a mega-yacht. Or if he is already, then he is truly altruistic to be dealing with the likes of me!
However, before the reader goes off thinking I'm completely blinkered and sarcastic, I think that Genetic Builder is an excellent concept. I also believe, mostly from my reading here, that it is well put together and supported by Mark. All credit to him. I'm also not saying I won't at some stage buy into it. I might. But there again I'd have as much chance of winning the National Lottery this year, sometime, with the money not spend on Genetic Builder as finding that elusive EA.
But please do - someone! - tell me I'm wrong. I'd like to think I am.
I'd like to finish by saying three things:
Do your homework. There is no better way of finding out what others have found to work. Look back in history.
Learn logic. If you are not a programmer (and few of us are really gifted with this), then use a builder, and create your own EAs based on what your have learned from the work of others. We all stand on the shoulders of giants.
Money management is key to long term profits. I believe most traders completely miss this point.
Learn logic. If you are not a programmer (and few of us are really gifted with this), then use a builder, and create your own EAs based on what your have learned from the work of others. We all stand on the shoulders of giants.
Money management is key to long term profits. I believe most traders completely miss this point.
Most important of all, have fun!