Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Folks are working on this methodolgy and keep crunching the other algos, too; eh?
I am sure some folks using these methods for trading have some very decent statistics for success. I am also sure that all others will not know about how the success has arrived.
@Ted: No need to be redundant and repeating yourself,
By the way, there was an extensive article in the WSJ just a few days ago... seems that the folks at MIT have in fact developed a self-learning computer. So far it's learned how to play a number of computer games, and in the process developed some winning solutions that humans had not considered. Took the thing some 600 tries to get there, but get there it did. What's 600 tries to a computer?
The important thing about this is that the AI computer, unlike IBM's approach, was NOT given any particular rule set or prior knowledge of how these games worked. It had to figure out the whole thing for itself. And it did. Coming soon to a financial entity near you...
Comments
Regards,
Ted
By the way, there was an extensive article in the WSJ just a few days ago... seems that the folks at MIT have in fact developed a self-learning computer. So far it's learned how to play a number of computer games, and in the process developed some winning solutions that humans had not considered. Took the thing some 600 tries to get there, but get there it did. What's 600 tries to a computer?
The important thing about this is that the AI computer, unlike IBM's approach, was NOT given any particular rule set or prior knowledge of how these games worked. It had to figure out the whole thing for itself. And it did. Coming soon to a financial entity near you...
Regards,
Ted