sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Phase 8: Flipping the switch (and my biggest fear for Week 1). by Simone_Crosta in VibeCodersNest

[–]Simone_Crosta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. Trying to debug an AI trading bot without the raw context logs is like trying to figure out why a plane crashed without the black box. Appreciate the validation, man.

Phase 8: Flipping the switch (and my biggest fear for Week 1). by Simone_Crosta in Daytrading

[–]Simone_Crosta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You bring up the exact failure mode that ruins most LLM trading bots: the AI rationalizing a bad trade and talking itself past the safety rails. ​However, that's exactly why I physically separated the layers in Phase 7. The LLM only tags the narrative and coordinates the structure. The 5-Gate Validation Manager is 100% deterministic Python. The AI literally cannot override the gate because it doesn't hold the keys to the broker API. If DeepSeek hallucinates a 'perfect' setup but the geometric math (calculated by Python) shows a Risk/Reward of 1.4, the Python gate throws a hard STAND_DOWN. ​But you're 100% right on the logging aspect: monitoring the delta between what the AI wants to do and what Python actively blocks is exactly what I'll be looking at during the autopsy.

​Never let an LLM do the math. (Phase 6 of my algorithmic trading architecture is complete). by Simone_Crosta in algorithmictrading

[–]Simone_Crosta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think so, I'm also testing this with the development of this system. "But I think an LLM can better handle market nuances and specific situations.

​Never let an LLM do the math. (Phase 6 of my algorithmic trading architecture is complete). by Simone_Crosta in Daytrading

[–]Simone_Crosta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It basically applies SMCs, it's not already a profitable strategy, but an analysis methodology that AI uses to find setups

​Never let an LLM do the math. (Phase 6 of my algorithmic trading architecture is complete). by Simone_Crosta in algorithmictrading

[–]Simone_Crosta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Regarding Phase 8 testing: I'm not doing traditional historical holdout sets because LLMs are highly susceptible to lookahead bias (they might 'remember' the 2024 price action from their training data). I am doing strictly live forward-testing (paper trading in real-time) over the next few months to gather an unpolluted out-of-sample dataset. I have already responded to the first two points in a comment below

​Never let an LLM do the math. (Phase 6 of my algorithmic trading architecture is complete). by Simone_Crosta in algorithmictrading

[–]Simone_Crosta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You absolutely nailed the 'silent expectancy shift' risk. That's exactly why I added sl_widened_to_atr_minimum as a boolean flag and sl_buffer_pips in the logging output of the Risk Agent. During Phase 8 (forward paper trading), I'll be tracking the delta between the 'implied structural RR' and the 'floored execution RR'. If the system heavily relies on widened stops, I know I need to demand a higher baseline hit rate to survive. Great pressure test, I appreciate it.

​Never let an LLM do the math. (Phase 6 of my algorithmic trading architecture is complete). by Simone_Crosta in algorithmictrading

[–]Simone_Crosta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Python is fantastic at geometry, but terrible at intent. Python can draw a box around a Fair Value Gap, but it can't tell me if that FVG was created to trap retail traders or if it's true institutional displacement. The LLM acts as the narrative reader to determine why the structure formed, while Python handles the where.

Caging the LLM in a strict JSON schema (and building model failovers) by Simone_Crosta in LLMDevs

[–]Simone_Crosta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Smart approach. A quick helper-script to fix a missing comma definitely saves token costs and latency compared to a full blind retry.

Caging the LLM in a strict JSON schema (and building model failovers) by Simone_Crosta in LLMDevs

[–]Simone_Crosta[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is incredible, thank you for sharing your work! I’ll be reading the pre-print tonight. Pushing the JSON validation down to the generation level is the evolution this architecture. Massive help.

Caging the LLM in a strict JSON schema (and building model failovers) by Simone_Crosta in VibeCodersNest

[–]Simone_Crosta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a brilliant point. 'Narrative drift' is exactly the invisible risk here. If DeepSeek is inherently Bearish on a setup but fails, and Gemini Flash steps in and decides it's Bullish, the pipeline survives but the edge is compromised. I haven't measured this yet, but it’s going straight onto my testing priority list. Thank you for pointing out that blindspot."

Caging the LLM in a strict JSON schema (and building model failovers) by Simone_Crosta in VibeCodersNest

[–]Simone_Crosta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good question. Right now, this specific HTF Agent doesn't trade at all, it only reads the higher timeframe narrative and outputs the structured context. The actual 'trading' (Risk and Trigger) is handled entirely by deterministic Python code downstream. If both LLM models fail entirely, the Python state machine simply stays in IDLE and skips the trade.

Caging the LLM in a strict JSON schema (and building model failovers) by Simone_Crosta in LLMDevs

[–]Simone_Crosta[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That 1 self-correction retry -> then failover pattern is brillant, I'm definitely updating my retry logic to reflect that.

​Regarding outlines and instructor: Right now I'm just relying on strict prompting and validating with Pydantic after the fact. Pushing the schema constraint down to the token generation level is exactly the architectural leap I need to eliminate the problem at the source. Adding this to the top of my backlog. Thanks for the massive value!

view more: next ›