alva, I found your skepticism very biased. Following your requests, we decided it would help if we address your questions in the interview. Therefore the only edits, where just addition around the 95% claim which seemed to be misunderstood.
Your main claim was that the bot cannot achieve 95% trade success trade constantly, which I undoubtedly agreed to and added more details on this claim.
The edit also provided more details about the platforms that I used along the way, as this detail was overlooked in the initial version of the interview.
Appreciate your point of view. First of all, there seems to be a lot of skepticism around this project and I found that surprising. You're saying that if you would get incredible returns from trading you would keep quiet. And therefore you are contradicting yourself by accusing my lack of transparency.
As I was invited to share my story on Indie Hackers, my goal was to provide as much insights into the project, without blowing up the advantage it gives me over a very niche market (NSE). I have absolutely no intention to 'advertise my freelancer business' or 'sell my tech', as someone mentioned. My goal was strictly to send an encouragement message to people thinking of/building something similar, by sharing as much as I can of my project. Faking stories online would be the last thing on my agenda and I find it somehow amusing that some people believe that.
PS: Having to cat a lot of text + csv files while developing this, it was much easier to alias my cat function to use csvtool on csv files and it's regular implementation on other files
PS2: The 'minimalist, ultra-stylish AWS window' is a quick app I cranked in a few hours to see the status of my instances. Not sure what's suspicious here. The window or the the fact that it's stylish?
>Appreciate your point of view. First of all, there seems to be a lot of skepticism around this project and I found that surprising.
Really? You made a crazy claim with no details at all.
Here's my assumptions on this thing:
1. Your algorithmic strategy is only performed on a small selection of stocks, that you have semi-randomly picked, aka not a part of your system.
2. These stocks have had a crazy run.
3. When the NSE had troubles in Nov. and Dec. your conservative stop losses triggered and you stayed out of the market.
4. Your decision on when to re-enter the market was a personal decision, not a part of your system.
5. You have given this thing more money to invest with than we are being led to believe.
Which ones did I miss on?
I gotta be honest, it really does seem like a nice little way to plug you business but I don't believe you're lying. I think you're overstating its performance by leaving out details and were lucky to get that performance in the first place.
From the article:
>> Got a cool project? I am currently available for freelance work.
Whether you are lying or not does not really matter, after all you're just a regular guy trying to get ahead like the rest of us. And the startup royalty keeps telling us to bend the rules. What I'm criticising is IndieHacker's lack of due diligence to screen for charlatans. I'm assuming you didn't show them any further proof than what's in the article?
> Appreciate your point of view. First of all, there seems to be a lot of skepticism around this project and I found that surprising. You're saying that if you would get incredible returns from trading you would keep quiet. And therefore you are contradicting yourself by accusing my lack of transparency.
Post your current and historic positions, opened and closed and people might believe you. Currently you have offered absolutely no proof of your claims and the interview suggests you are extremely naive of trading.
Really not. If that was my intention, I would went directly to the source. I was invited to share my story with the sole purpose of inspiring others. I have no plans of selling it whatsoever.
While I do agree with you to some extent, as opposed to gambling, stock market requires technical knowledge. I strongly believe that individual traders stand no chance agains the big players and there may be a combination of luck + favorable stock picks in this case.
Completely agree with you. The amount of backtesting has been very limited and the time frame was pretty short, so there are definitely changes this is a fluke. Confirming this is my main goal at the moment and I don't take any credit for creating something revolutionary.
Great question!
To be honest, I had this idea in mind for a long time and I thought a lot about it before I actually built it. Therefore there is certainly motivation coming from the challenge of creating this and in some ways I think the profit and challenge factors are somehow correlated.
I talked about it in the interview. For this first version I used Kite for trading and mostly Intrinio for financial data. Costs vary from provider to provider, but for testing this, I went with some of the least expensive ones.
not to criticize you, but this seems to have no logic - "My bot holds a single position from seconds to minutes (sometimes even hours), which makes it more of an automated trader than a high frequency trader" - so your initial investment was less than 25K$,meaning you would be tagged has Pattern Daily Trader with account freeze for 90 days - how does your Algorithm even work with that kind of investment ?
OP is trading on Indian markets, so there is no pattern day trading rules. It's not made very clear in the article and I was confused for a bit as well.
You can make more than 100% going to the slot machine at the casino.
The difference between gambling and trading is not that big. Trading has more ways where you can get an edge over the house, but it is not that different from poker or slot machines.
If you make a million spins of $1 each you will end with $800000 or whatever the state law is regarding payout. In general an index fund will go up since most economic policies are geared toward inflation.
Your main claim was that the bot cannot achieve 95% trade success trade constantly, which I undoubtedly agreed to and added more details on this claim.
The edit also provided more details about the platforms that I used along the way, as this detail was overlooked in the initial version of the interview.
I find your claims unfounded and harassing.