News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:I've reproduced 130 research papers about “predicting the... by anonu on Saturday August 17, 2019 @01:02PM (#20724938)
> you need to construct methods to improve the markets with your trading

What percentage of traders do you think will approach the market with such altruism?

I think the markets are way too complex to rationalize "improving a market". Markets are by definition good markets when you have long term and short term traders mixed in with technical and fundamental traders all with different alpha time horizons. This is a healthy market.

If you're a speculator, so be it. As you point out, the market may teach you a lesson at some point. Those guys go away but new ones will join.

It's a beautiful virtuous cycle.

Not to say there aren't bad actors. Most speculators are not IMHO. But they cross the line when they undertake certain market activities, like spoofing for example. This is why good markets also have good regulatory oversight (finra, sec... )

Re:I've reproduced 130 research papers about “predicting the... by 1e-9 on Saturday August 17, 2019 @01:33PM (#20725124)
> What percentage of traders do you think will approach the market with such altruism?

Approximately 0%. I don't know of any entities that trade as a nonprofit. The point is that if you find something the market needs, you will have inherently discovered an opportunity that can make money because there is demand which exceeds supply for the service. As an additional benefit, such strategies are unlikely to run afoul of regulatory oversight or be eliminated through future rule changes.

> I think the markets are way too complex to rationalize "improving a market".

This is not rationalizing, it is about how to effectively identify profitable opportunities. Let's turn the argument around. Do you expect a trading strategy that harms a market to be reliably profitable without risking fines, banning, or imprisonment? If you don't, then it probably makes sense to exclude such approaches from your strategy search space. Additionally, I would argue that strategies which are of neutral benefit to the markets are likely to generate small returns relative to their risk because entities on the other side of your trades are not receiving value and thus the market is more likely to turn against you. If we eliminate "harmful" and "neutral", we're left with "beneficial".

I completely agree with everything else you say.

Re:I've reproduced 130 research papers about “predicting the... by astrophysician on Saturday August 17, 2019 @03:45PM (#20725897)
> Do you expect a trading strategy that harms a market to be reliably profitable without risking fines, banning, or imprisonment?

Non-trader here, what do you mean by a particular trading strategy "harm[ing] a market," how would you actually measure harm to a market by a given trading strategy, and would whatever metric you decide on for that not just be a dressed-up subjective argument?

Re:I've reproduced 130 research papers about “predicting the... by 1e-9 on Saturday August 17, 2019 @08:37PM (#20727413)
By "harming a market", I mean "causing a market to be less efficient". It is typically easier to identify harmful behavior than it is to quantify the amount of harm caused. Sometimes you can easily estimate a rough lower bound on the harm's cost. Easier cases include 1) Spoofing, where you could estimate the harm as being greater than the captured profit, and 2) Self-trading for the purpose of receiving liquidity provider incentives, where you could estimate the harm as being greater than the incentives received. Harder cases include situations where poor strategies caused market instability by underestimating risk or trading in a way that is too similar to others. Extreme examples of these include the Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) blowout in 1998, the 2010 Flash Crash, or any number of firms that contributed to the financial crisis of 2007-2008. You should be able to find plenty of academic papers attempting to quantify the harm of those.