Revised copy -
Hey Myst - thanks for your thoughtful reply to my somewhat unfocused post.
I guess my use of "alchemy" was intended to connote a more negative meaning than you assign it - more like antiscientific or luddite than anything else. Certainly I agree with you that logic and intuition will serve the trader well. I also feel that there's nothing magic or mysterious about the process - these subconscious algorithms can be put into more concrete form. Development of X_DEV was such a process. I'm sure that the analysis, mathematical or logical, was wholly conscious - it's deciding the relative importance of each input or idea that's subconscious.
If I had to judge (and far be it from me to present myself as an expert), I'd say the main talent you exhibited in development of X_DEV was simply recognizing what works generally. You must have used your systematic, conscious methods as well as those subconscious ones. Finding what works generally is no mean feat - you can always pick indicators (in hindsight) that "predict" a particular event, but which fail in prospective use. This generality poses too hard a problem: X_DEV compromises by performing well only with specific stocks and expecting some external optimization by the user, mostly in reaction to market events. X_DEV's "limited generality" requires that the user pick stocks with proper volatility (often found by backtesting), be aware of and understand market conditions, and have some technical understanding of what happens when you change the program inputs (multiples etc). This compromise seems workable for most users, with a range of success almost always being better than buy-and-hold, and often a lot better. There's still a human in the loop, but X_DEV seems to help a lot, at least IME.
On a somewhat different vector, you wrote
X_DEV's algorithm objectively evaluates price behavior and determines when a buy or sell should take place and how much money should be used based on each individuals particular situation (ie. commitment to the play) and personal trading style.
The interesting points here are commitment to the play and personal trading style. I'd interpret the first as either confidence in the company or willingness to wait out a down trend. Trading style could be a lot of things, but I think you mean the length of the plays that the trader prefers. Some expansion would be welcome.
best regards Tim
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
