If you want to lose money, this is a good way to do it.
You're better off buying what you believe in and holding it. It's easy to fit a perfect model to historical data, but it rarely works going forward, unless you have insider information.
You're better off buying what you believe in and holding it. It's easy to fit a perfect model to historical data, but it rarely works going forward, unless you have insider information.
That's the main factor of human losses and mistakes. We always doubt ourselves.
You turn your 95% trading rules into an algo you can be sure it won't take a quick out to cut it's loss when it looks like the market is going wrong... the machine will always trust itself.
GDAX has 0% fees on limit orders. Say you set a limit sell at +1% and a stop loss at -1%. You could trigger a buy whenever you predict that it's >80% likely to hit +1% before -1%.
Plug in everything you can get (trades, order book, etc) from GDAX's WebSocket API into an RNN, and I'd guess you can be right more than you're wrong. Aka profitable.
Even basic ML/AI strategies can be easily profitable with the current volatility. It drastically reduces the risk of the HOLD strategy, and while not necessarily the top profits, can be much safer.
I've been running various algorithms for the past 4 months with varying success (whole system homemade in Python), all profitable.
I'd also note that as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, what algorithm is very important. This market is like few others, and thus I have found lends itself to very different strategies.
When you place an order which is not immediately matched by an existing order, that order is placed on the order book. If another customer places an order that matches yours, you are considered the maker and your fee will be 0%.
When you place an order that gets partially matched immediately, you pay a taker fee for that portion. The remainder of the order is placed on the order book and, when matched, is considered a maker order. The fee is 0% for that part of the total order."
> Many people are reporting losses in live trading even if the simulation results and/or paper trading is positive.
Someone's missing the big picture.
Also, this isn't a javascript problem; this is a problem of trying to be too clever and not understanding implicit conversion, which happens in many languages.
And that doesn't happen in many decent languages. That is, languages with strong typing.
EDIT: `!0`
int main (int argc, char* argv[]) {
return 0;
}The concept of using 0 to mean false is not new to javascript is what I was getting at.
Not necessarily. It's just a (mostly POSIX and Linux kernel) convention to use 0 as "no error" result, but there are plenty of code that returns 0 as an error and >0 for success. It has nothing to do with C language itself, as C functions let you return pretty much anything or nothing at all (void functions).
In a shell, for example, the 0 exit status is normally actually truthy:
$(exit 0) && echo helloLet's just leave it at C languages + Python, which account for a large percentage of developer mind-share, so to say that it's unintuitive that 0 is falsey is either disingenuous or slightly ignorant.
You say that it answers the question "Are there any errors?", but that's just one possible boolean interpretation of the status code.
That said, I don't know of a shell that doesn't interpret zero status as true, because true(1) and false(1) in Unix returns status zero and non-zero respectively. It's not just Unix, it's Windows, DOS etc. In that sense, the prevalent boolean interpretation is that it answers the question "Did the process end with a success status code?", the exact opposite of what you think.
That you or anyone else finds bash or this boolean interpretation in general unintuitive is besides the point, and ignoring that I've already said half of this to complain about bash is a pretty rude way to short-circuit a discussion.
The non-truthiness of 0 is something present in many languages.