What happens if the network drops while you're in a trade, or in the middle of executing an order? What if you have a partial fill, and you have a partial buy order hanging around and a full sell order out there? What if you have a stop limit order to exit a trade, and it blows through your limit? Do you have a backup stop order just in case? There are a lot of issues that you can't backtest that can only be learned once you start trading real money. I've had situations where I ran my algos on the DAX overnight, and I woke up to find that the exit order never executed, and I was 1000 euros away from where I should have gotten out. Luckily, this trade was in my favor, but it scared the shit out of me because it could have easily gone the other way. I've also had my internet connection drop overnight, and I had to scramble to figure out how to get out of a trade I was in.

The other issue is interpreting backtesting data, and knowing the difference between over-optimized data (ie. curve fitting) vs something with an actual edge. You can make almost any algo profitable if you curve-fit, even a simple MA cross-over can show extremely profitable results, if you over-optimize the data. But it won't work in real life. So being able to sift between falsely good algos and actually profitable algos is very, very hard, and takes experience. This is the biggest problem with trying to find an actual algo with an edge, it's very very hard.

I wrote my own backtester and I download my own data nightly, and that definitely takes a lot of time and effort, but the hardest part is the actual trading, by far. The psychology involved with trading is an order of magnitude harder than coding, and the hardest thing I've ever done in my life. I blew through a shitload of money, just to learn the ropes.

In terms of algo trading books, I really don't have any recommendations. I found most of the algo trading books are similar, telling you to watch out for curve fitting, etc. Where they lack is helping you come up with actual trades. My recommendation is a book called "Mastering the Trade" by John Carter. He gives out trade setups that he actually used. They may no longer be profitable, but it's the closest thing you can get to actually learning various day trading techniques, and you can implement those to get an idea, and then work your way from there.

I'm not hating on Quantopian, it looks pretty nicely done, and hopefully it takes off. But from experience, I know that algorithmic trading is by far the hardest thing I've done. If inexperienced traders jump in, they'll spend a lot of money on "tuition" for sure.

If anyone had their own algos, they would probably be too paranoid that Quantopian would run backtesting on every single algo, and cherry pick the best ones for themselves. Whether or not it's true doesn't matter, it's most likely the common thought process that any successful algo trader would have.

That would leave only the inexperienced and beginning traders that would be more apt to fail, since algo trading is very, very, very hard.

And am I right in that you are basically saying that the buyers take on all risk of storage at the warehouse facility? If so, you should probably outline that as well, including what the insurance policy of the warehouse, covers, etc.

It seems relatively easy for someone to turn credit card payments directly into cash, by making a trade and then extracting cash through the bank account. And the gap between your withdrawal policies and the chargeback policies of credit cards are pretty wide. I would be very careful about this. Forcing users to enter bank accounts make it a bit harder for average people to defraud, but not a motivated fraudster. Also, allowing people to take delivery of wine through the purchase of a credit card, and then being subject to a chargeback will be extremely painful, although I'm not sure how easily chargebacks are fought in Europe. If you do suffer a lot of chargebacks though, even if you successfully fight them all, be prepared to be dropped by your credit card processor.

I think your business is actually very interesting, but I'm surprised that credit card companies would allow you to accept credit cards at all, since I would think they would lazily lump you in as a form of brokerage site. Not that I believe this, but it seems like an easy translation to stock brokerages, which don't accept credit card payments, but force you to transfer real cash into your accounts before you trade. Then once you have money in a brokerage, they can extend margin, but they maintain their own risk by monitoring the margin levels, etc.

Good luck though, I read through your site and I think it's a very neat idea!

The multiple people telling you to shut up isn't because they are trying to squelch discussion on the topic. They are telling you to shut up because you, specifically, bring negative value to the discussion and you are responsible for decreasing the signal to noise ratio.

In your example about the dumb, drunken football fan yelling at the TV, the people in the bar are now starting to tell him to STFU because they want to watch the game and not have to listen to the useless, drunken ranting of someone with zero credibility.

I doubt there is a high likelihood of a meaningful conversation from someone who is screaming "Why doesn't Google stop working on stupid problems and fix this, while I continue working on my own stupid problems".

It's not an empty criticism. It speaks to your credibility. You are admonishing Google and Facebook for working on "stupid" ideas, when you yourself are working on a presumably stupid idea, since you're not saving anyone's life but instead working on a way so that you can make money. How credible can your rant be if you aren't following your own advice?

I would rather hear the same rant from someone in the field who is frustrated because they are "fighting the good fight", not from someone who is engaging in the exact same "stupid" behavior that they are ranting about.

That means, that by you turning on dead posts, you are subjecting yourself to the 80% case where they get it right. If one of them is spamming with huge blocks of text, etc... well, you signed up for it in the low-probability case that one of the dead posts actually contained valuable information.

Keep it simple. Don't start adding multiple layers of hellbanning protection just to fix a low-probability edge case.

I think HN has the highest quality comments of any tech-related forum site. There are consistently tons and tons of great comments from people that are very well-informed.

Reddit sometimes have a lot of very great comments, because of their reach they can get comments from a lot of experts on a wide variety of topics. But it also has a lot more noise, and a lot of "joke" posts, something that HN actively discourages, and which keeps the signal-to-noise ratio high.

EVERY forum is going to be filled with trolls and assholes. HN certainly has its share, but I would say for the most part, the signal-to-noise ratio is the highest. This is the reason why I left Slashdot after being a member for so long.

I only knew Aaron Swartz from the things written about him on the Internet. But it really feels like he had a lot more to contribute to this world, not just technologically, but socially and philisophically as well. His death to me feels much like when Kurt Cobain died, back in 1994. Both were artists who had much more to contribute, but their lives were cut much too short by mental illness/depression. It's sad.

Kurt Cobain died just a few years before the Internet really took off. I always imagine that he would have embraced this, and would have done things like released his music for free, and would have radically changed the way music was distributed. In a few years, there will be even more technology invented, and it could very well be that had Aaron Swartz stayed alive, he could have found other ways to contribute new things as well.

Now in SF, it's the worst cab situation I've ever seen. I've had cabs that I ordered via the phone never bother to show up, and once waited 90 mins in front of a hotel, as the hotel employee tried to flag taxis as they passed by the line. I don't bother taking the cab anymore. If I need to be somewhere for a day like New Year's Eve, I'll park downtown earlier that afternoon and then take the Muni there.

I just might try out Uber this New Year's Eve and see how that goes.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4896094

Points: 26

# Comments: 5

This mindset has completely stymied any sort of innovation at Microsoft because they are playing with one arm tied behind their backs in the midst of trying to compete against the likes of Google, Facebook, etc. In Steve Ballmer's eyes, everything must lead back to the sale of a license of Windows/Office, and that no longer works in their environment.

If Microsoft engineers had free rein to make the best search engine, or the best phone, or the best tablet, without worries about how will it lead to maintaining their revenue streams of Windows and more importantly Office, then I think their offerings would be on an order of magnitude better and more creative.

There is no other explanation for getting rid of buyer reputation and providing no protection to sellers. They only want people who don't care about buyer reputation, and have deep enough pockets and the expectation that chargebacks and fraud will occur. If they deal with these larger customers, this increases their selling volume (and fees) and decreases their support costs.

I wasn't sure what I needed to do to get to the "Desktop" mode where it looked like Windows 7, or how to flip back and forth, and which things I could swipe, etc. I felt like it was a big mess because a lot of the UI features that we've come to expect were not there. In contrast, the iPhone and subsequently the iPad were intuitive right off the bat.

To be fair, I'm seeing a lot of this terrible UI experience in other things as well. For example, on Chrome when you are reading a PDF, if you want to save it or zoom, it's not obvious how to do it. You need to miraculously hover over the bottom right corner and then the buttons show themselves, but there are no visual cues indicating that that's what you're supposed to do. It's fancy, but terrible UI.

The same thing occurs on Facebook, where people are just expected to know where to hover in order to show functionality. I don't know where this trend came from, but it's terrible, and I think this article is showing an extension of how we are moving away from all the visual cues and things we've learned about UX in the past 30 years. Sure, it's different but it doesn't mean it's better, especially when it forced people to hunt, peck, and guess for functionality, something that UX is supposed to get rid of.