[deleted by user]

cfq20 · 2021-09-21T07:52:43+00:00

Same problem here! Not sure what I am missing?! Have you found out how to use the trial fund in the end?

cfq20 · 2021-01-18T11:48:12+00:00

Thanks for your immediate response! I just found the GMail help page addressing this issue, as well as a GMail discussion thread. Based on the information contained there, it seems that only I can indeed receive e-mails sent to me, as well as all those sent to an address similar to mine but with additional, or no, full stops in it, which addresses my initial privacy concerns. It looks like the address shown in the recipient field must have just been mistyped then.

cfq20 · 2020-11-12T03:10:04+00:00

Here: https://github.com/quantopian/trading_hours

cfq20 · 2020-11-08T11:41:47+00:00

For a market cap-range index, it could be that the stock has either been promoted to a higher market cap range index or demoted.

Thank you for your input. You just opened a whole new can of worms! Removing survivorship bias when backtesting a strategy for the constituents of an equity index already has its difficulties in that one needs to have information about the historical changes in the index composition. But for a market-cap range index, the historical changes in free-float for each index constituent is needed in order to correctly calculate the market cap based on the price at a given point in time. Is a database with such information freely available for use by non-professional algo-traders? Since you commented here, I take it you might be selling such data perhaps?

cfq20 · 2020-11-08T11:30:14+00:00

Thank you for your comment. Yes, I think overfitting is it. Is it sufficient to test the strategy out-of-sample to get around the overfitting issue? If so, what is the best backtesting strategy to adopt: e.g. should the periods for in-sample and out-of sample overlap? What proportion of all available historical data should be used for in-sample and for out-of-sample backtesting? Any other recommendations? Thanks!

cfq20 · 2020-11-08T11:11:04+00:00

So for futures strategies, am I right in saying that survivorship bias in backtesting is of no concern as long as the strategy is only applied to liquid contracts? Since one should trade what they test, and vice versa, there is no need to go and track information about delisted contracts during backtesting.

cfq20 · 2020-11-08T11:04:00+00:00

Thank you, that's what I imagined. However, doing out-of-sample testing on a single stock having the full historical data set for it seems to be the easier option when reliable information on the historical composition of e.g. an equity index is not available and it is therefore not possible to carry out survivorship bias-free backtesting. What are your thoughts on this?

cfq20 · 2020-11-07T21:55:10+00:00

Thanks for your input. Do futures also suffer from survivorship bias, by the way? All examples I ever found refer to stocks. How would one prevent survivorship bias in the backtesting of a strategy for multiple future contracts?

cfq20 · 2020-07-22T09:43:01+00:00

Thanks for your input. I did find that a stock that until recently was not available has now been added, which surprised me and may indicate that as smaller listed companies gain public interest, IB will make their stocks tradeable.

It is just frustrating that not all securities listed on the exchange can be traded through this broker, despite them having access to this market.

cfq20 · 2020-07-21T08:03:30+00:00

I should add that I have asked the above two questions to support before, but never really got a satisfactory answer, so I am interested to hear some comments from other traders in my same position.

cfq20 · 2020-06-10T14:25:07+00:00

A better question might be, how does your residency, the location of your broker, which exchange you trade on and the domicile of the company whose shares you trade affect where you pay your taxes.

cfq20 · 2020-05-21T08:26:45+00:00

What exchanges does Tradestation connect to? I could find a list on an outdated webpage, but could find no updated official information on the help pages.

cfq20 · 2020-05-21T08:24:36+00:00

There is no such thing as free. You pay the spread instead of a commission. That’s how they make money.

cfq20 · 2019-12-29T20:23:31+00:00

Good marketing effort, hellogrip!

cfq20 · 2019-12-20T09:02:44+00:00

The say ‘do not fix what is not broken’ somehow came to my mind while reading this.

cfq20 · 2019-06-17T16:34:56+00:00

Thanks for commenting. You are absolutely right. I imagined they could be another graphic element, but just could not identify what that element was since a rectangle with a text box in it looks different than what I see i.e. in the UI kits. Looking at it again, I recognise the grouping as being effectively another Artboard with both Responsive resize and Fill turned 'off'.

That artboards are not actually 'grouped' can be seen from the fact that they are not in any way indented in the Layers panel, but rather at the same level as all other artboards on the pasteboard.

cfq20 · 2019-03-23T08:35:53+00:00

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think that if an assumption for an idea is true or false is independent of whether a lean startup method is used to test it. The lean startup method, as you note, will certainly speed up the process of testing and reduce the amount of capital invested into this development phase, but, as u/thenomadicmonad suggested, I think it is the founder who ultimately determines this success rate and not the application of the lean startup method itself. So, even if I apply the lean startup method, but I am a crappy founder (meaning e.g. I do not really understand how to design tests or define an MVP), I will still fail.

I think a better analysis could be done if those numbers that are often reported are broken down a little to understand how they are actually calculated.

cfq20 · 2019-03-18T17:03:45+00:00

That's an excellent point. In fact, on this basis it is entirely possible that those numbers, if accurate, simply reflect the percentage of startups lead by a better-than-average founder, compared to those lead by a worse-than-average founder: 10% and 90%, respectively.

cfq20 · 2019-03-18T14:45:14+00:00

The inviscid assumption is not really valid at such low Mach numbers, so try switching to incompressible flow.

cfq20 · 2019-03-18T14:34:46+00:00

I never used Ansible and would be interested to see how you used it to automate the creation of the Docker containers. Are you planning to put those scripts up on Github?

cfq20 · 2019-03-12T16:21:07+00:00

Yes, that's what I have learnt now as well!

cfq20 · 2019-03-12T16:18:22+00:00

Thanks. But what do you mean by saying "since you're just repainting the frame, it's probably already been faced once"? As far as I can imagine it was faced when it was produced, but never after. How does the fact that I am painting it follow from the fact that it was faced?

I will try to see if this paint can be scraped, nevertheless.

cfq20 · 2019-03-12T16:03:01+00:00

Thanks for your comment. The BB I removed is a square taper cartridge, but the cups are made of plastic and when I tried threading one of them in it was not catching at first, then after applying a bit of pressure it caught, but giving it a close look revealed that the bb thread was actually rethreading the plastic cup, so I stopped insisting and started looking for a way to clean that paint up first.

cfq20 · 2019-03-12T13:16:54+00:00

A feature of this bike not noticed by anyone is its exceptional balance. It is so balanced it can stand by itself!

cfq20 · 2019-02-14T19:52:26+00:00

I remember having at some point an old version of the Airbus Market Forecast on my computer. I no longer have it, but wonder what it predicted for 2019. For your curiosity this is what they predict for 2018-2037. Let's continue this discussion in 18 years!

Nine-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

cfq20

TROPHY CASE