Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
200$ a month, if the low DDs persist this one could make more. Zoethecus, did you factor in creative position sizing techniques (market's money approach etc) in your backtesting?
IMHO, we need to differentiate a hedge fund and ATS. Successful hedge funds do not rely solely on ATS. If at all they use ATS, they know when to cut it loose. Obviously long term profits on any ATS is 0. That is essentially the Efficient Market Hypothesis (folks interested in theoritical maths can further read about it)...
I have to disagree with the part about those automating strategies are either lazy or foolish... at the end of the day, when you trade, you follow a plan... which are rules, and yes not all rules can be defined by code to follow which is why there is also discretion when trading as our experience becomes the rules over time...anyhow, if rules can be followed then they can be coded and as such automated to react much faster and process more information than we can real time... now, the only thing i find foolish is when people tend to over-optimize and not walkforward and test their strategies; just like people who trade in simm and think they can trade with real money because they were succesfull in simm.. .. to summarize, if one has a discretionary method that works, why not automate it? ... btw, that does not mean set and forget it... as no system is infallible.. just my 2cents.
Zoe... I would suggest that in order to make the data gathering for your analysis more relevant that you could perhaps create a poll that would list subscription ranges.. $0-50, $50-100, $100-200, $200-300, $300+ ... that way the data would be easier to analyze ... and you could avoid opinions that were not related to the goal..
everyone will always have their own opinion formulated on their own experienced...
as to the question, I would say assuming the system had a trial, 10-20 days, which would enable one to perform ones own testing against multiple markets, on replay data, etc... I would say a range of $100-$200 would be "acceptable" to me assuming it can be cancelled at any time and prorated.. and also, I will add one more thing... vendor support and their ability to take feedback and collaborate would be critical... and if they limited the number of subscribers to a given number or not in order to maintain whatever edge they might have found..
Since the overall futures.io (formerly BMT) response was weak reflecting, I think, a general lack of interest in ATS. I am only disclosing the fees, not the vendor.
I'm curious. Do you write your own code for your ATSs? If so, then you understand what it takes to write the rules and I would appreciate some help writing more effective rules specifically for the JMA method that I'm using.