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)
I'm interested in your initial idea, but there has also been lots of thought provoking commentary. Perhaps this is a naive question, but why has no one made a strategy to test the initial theory? It seems like it could settle some of the disagreements if you run it on multiple instruments/years. I tried to make one myself, but got stumped on a few aspects (beginner to NT7).
In my experience, advanced mathematics does help in trading if "advanced" means robust and careful, not super-complex. Some of the relatively recent advances in data mining deal with various forms of regularization. It allows one to reduce the chance of missing structural change in the market at the expense of a fraction of Sharpe ratio. Examples of useful methods are LAR, lasso, nonparametric association measures, etc. But this is a long journey. To understand the methods on the level of their inner workings, to be able to combine them efficiently, one has to invest much time. Something along the lines of this statistics study plan (page bottom, skip the beginning) or a similar kind. Well, 25% of that should do as a start... Advanced mathematics is not binomial distribution or pure Monte Carlo.