E-mail:    

TRADING SYSTEMS

Robots Aren’t What They’re Cracked Up To Be

Robots, Aren’t, What, They’re, Cracked Up, To Be, Trading Systems, fx trader, forex

The interesting journey of a trader who tried to systemize his very coherent strategy reveals what he found out while studying the reasons behind market moves, including the six price action categories and how he identifies chart turning point signals.

I started many years ago in computer networks and I was part of the team that worked on the successful implementation of the London Stock Exchange Trading systems. From that point I got sucked into equity trading and worked for UBS, RBS, Dresdner-Kleinwort (Benson and Wasserstein), Merrill Lynch to name but a few. Eventually I started trading on my own account – first with equities and then onto options. I made modest returns and then moved into FX.

Trading manually is a steep learning curve. I spent hours and hours glued to screens and when I was not actively trading myself – I was thinking about it. So I decided to re-claim some of my life back by setting out to systemize my very coherent trading strategy Little did I know the nature of the treadmill I was to put myself on.

The road to systematization

I trawled through a plethora of trading platforms looking at their APIs, encyclopaedic indicators and MT4/MT5 algorithm offerings. Technically all very awesome and all offering the promise of substantial profits – on the strict proviso that if periodically I made a loss I should just grin and bear it as statistically I’d come out a winner.

Call me a cynic – but that didn’t quite suit me. I wasn’t happy with that position – so I started out asking searching questions of indicators and robots. Unfortunately I never found anyone who could give me answers as to why such and such an indicator worked or how their algorithm functioned.

You can get a great many explanations as to the theories of indicators – and some even wax lyrical about the esoterics of combining such stalwarts (like MACD with Ichymoku) – but for every supportive statement for the theory when it works there always seems to be an equally detailed statement as to why it does not.

Next>>