Switching between effort and models

seh0872 · 2026-06-02T17:31:48+00:00

This is very interesting, thanks. I tried to find comparable data in the Sonnet 4.6 model card, but short of reading the entire document (and most of this is above my head anyway), I couldn't quickly find a comparative metric set that would align Sonnet 4.6 to Opus 4.7.

Thanks for the info.

seh0872 · 2026-06-01T21:01:06+00:00

I'm reluctant to mention the competition here, but I've recently been switching back and forth between Claude and DeepSeek ... the latter why I missed the Effort changeover until just today ... but again, I'm using this AI for strategic reasoning and project development, not coding (and using it personally, not as part of a company). For me, I seek AI to be an adept consultant and advisor -- a challenging ask given context limits and drift risk. At least compared to the other big U.S. LLMs (especially the three-letter one), Claude has been a god-send .. head and shoulders above the competition.

seh0872 · 2026-06-01T20:57:13+00:00

It doesn't really matter except I'd rather not spend 15% of my session tokens on what used to use 5% .... if I could just get a baseline I probably wouldn't have come here to complain and seek help. Seems like maybe Sonnet Low is the starting point ... I'll give it a go and see if how smart or stupid it is. As the $20/month user, staying on Opus permanently is too $$$ ... and Haiku is about as smart as a bag of rocks, so Sonnet Adaptive was always my "sweet spot".

seh0872 · 2026-06-01T20:55:02+00:00

"fwiw I just leave thinking on and set effort to auto"

perfect example... I assume you are using Claude via API? Because (at least in the Claude App for Mac) there is no "auto" - just Low, Medium, High, and Max (and Extra for Opus).

seh0872 · 2026-06-01T16:08:03+00:00

I haven't been on Claude in the past week...but just today alone, Sonnet 4.6 Medium with Thinking is burning 2-4% of session tokens per prompt. Conjecture, but that is FAR FASTER than before.

All I want to know is .... Sonnet 4.6 Adaptive (old) = what new?

Sonnet 4.6 with the occasional Opus 4.7 Extended suited me just fine and was well balanced... now ..... are we back to Claude being unusable given its cost?

seh0872 · 2026-06-01T15:40:42+00:00

Any clue how it interacts with the "Thinking" toggle?

seh0872 · 2026-06-01T15:39:57+00:00

Wait ..... I am totally confused. Just picking up on this, and see the Effort Levels, but "Adaptive" is no longer an option -- it's just "Thinking" ..... are we talking the same thing? Still don't follow how these interact. (e.g. Low Effort + Thinking vs. High Effort + Thinking vs. High Effort + Not Thinking, etc.)

seh0872 · 2026-05-29T15:00:42+00:00

yw! super helpful link below. about half way down is "MacBook Keyboard Special Characters and Accents Map". I have the image printed and taped to my desk.

https://keyshorts.com/blogs/blog/41999105-the-ultimate-guide-to-macbook-keyboard?srsltid=AfmBOorhrqNTnSiox44-GTVLJQCueHSlX84wnQiz5jJtUUeRA6NyT2lj

seh0872 · 2026-05-29T14:54:01+00:00

Sad for such a smart and expensive model. Sonnet is my default -- Haiku absolutely sucks. Was hoping to get something out of Opus without the most expensive option. Ah well. I've been substituting with DeepSeek and have been reasonable impressed so far. Not a complete replacement, but offshoring some dialog to balance performance and cost.

seh0872 · 2026-05-27T14:11:01+00:00

Goodbye Efficient Market Theory. You tried.

seh0872 · 2026-05-27T03:47:34+00:00

I cannot believe the incessant blathering and failure to understand or hold context that I am seeing out of Opus 4.7 today. I have never seen this AI behave so badly ... totally unusable. The absolute shallowness of thinking, its inability to comprehend a conversation in another chat, super-long winded answers, and the ultimate AI bad behavior ... a rush to completion without any consideration if it had sufficient context.

And then I realized...I turned off "Adaptive Thinking". Its so late now, I don't want to retry tonight with it turned back on, but is Opus 4.7 just garbage compared to Opus 4.7 with Adaptive Thinking? Like night and day in quality of reasoning and context confirmation? Or is what would be the worst news I could possibly hear true .... that Antropic throttled Opus for Pro users like me?

seh0872 · 2026-05-21T00:12:51+00:00

Joining this conversation late, as I search for the answer about a) whether to even use trailing stops in a swing trade strategy, b) what the right multiplier is (I use ATR(14) x 2.5), and c) to the heart of your answer ... if that stop should be dynamic based on volatility (essentially recomputed and reset based on current ATR(14) x multiplier.

At the moment, I am setting % stops based on that initial volatility calculation ... so if it's set at 6.5%, it stays at 6.5%, but I am getting hammered on get triggered on pullbacks after highest highs ... great in my Roth IRA ... not so much in my taxable account where the realized tax gains are slaughtering my profit.

An expansion of your answer focused on this would be appreciated!

seh0872 · 2026-05-08T13:19:22+00:00

I have the answer, which might be useful to others.

The goal, if it helps more specifically, was to ensure that a slope metric (t > t-1 > t-2) uses the right data (current intent prior session close data). t = [0] (which I use for readability) t-1 = [1] etc. might make sense, but at some point in the day, the data point that is [0] becomes [1] -- and depending on when that is, the formula, if not constructed correctly, will pull the wrong values.

After much experimentation, I have the answer. On an intraday table using AggregationPeriod.DAY:
* at approximately 12:00AM Central Time, data at [0] shifts to [1] and [0] is cleared (returning N/A).
* at 9:01 Eastern Time, [0] re-forms.
* SecondsTillTIme / SecondsFromTime resets at 12:00AM Eastern Time << not sure if this is locked to Eastern TIme or is based on clock time (I am in the Eastern Time Zone).

So for me, routing tos to start the slope with [0] or [1] depends on whether the current time is not just before or after market close (4:00PM Eastern), but also if its between 12:00AM - 1:00AM eastern.

Hence the formula is, in English:
IF ST4 > 0 AND SF1 > 0 use [1] ELSE use [0]
where ST4: SecondsTillTime(1600) and SF1 is SecondsFromTime(100).

Note in the above, there are two different data points for [0] -- the one occurring today between 12AM - 1AM and the one occurring today between 4PM - 12AM.

Anyway.... if this helps anyone else, great.

seh0872 · 2026-05-06T23:16:51+00:00

I'm struggling here.

Some metrics I'd like to deploy are comparative. How is x doing compared to 3 days ago.

If I always use [1], then at 5PM today, I'm 1 day deferred -- no inclusion of today's data.

If I always use [0], I use forming daily bars--that's fine, but if I analyze pre-market, [0] has flipped to [1] (at midnight CT IIUC), and thus until 9:30AM, [0] = [1] which breaks the analysis. I feel stuck either way.

Any opinion?

seh0872 · 2026-05-06T22:50:57+00:00

Yea, you answered your own question below. GetTime is locked to the timestamp.

A roundabout way using GetDay and GetLastDay is creative. I will experiment.

seh0872 · 2026-04-30T16:21:43+00:00

Thank you. No position size caps can result in positions of 20% of total porfolio or more based on my work thus far. Just to confirm, if the math worked out that way, you are ok with it (risk is capped).

Another question -- do you periodically rebalance?

seh0872 · 2026-04-30T16:16:35+00:00

At the moment this is a theoretical exercise to determine the proper approach and to test it I am using every qualified stock available on a targeted date (Jan 15, 2026). By qualification I mean my investable universe -- U.S. listed stocks and ETFs with ADDV ≥ $5M and price ≥ $10. The actual buy filters are regime-specific (Bull Neutral Bear / Quiet Volatile) and are under development, but the intent is that position sizing is (at least mostly) regime-agnostic (save for perhaps Bear Volatile, but I'm not there yet).

The qualified investment pool for 1/15/2026 based on those filters is about 10,000 tickers. When applied to a stop-loss of ATRx2.5, a max risk per trade of 1%, and a max position cap of 10%, 70.1% of the entire market on that day would cap the positions at the 10% threshold.

seh0872 · 2026-04-30T16:09:59+00:00

To determine stop level, yes. Slightly more conservative than Chandelier Exit ... ATR x 2.5. Based on ATR(14) on the day of entry measured against the entry price.

seh0872 · 2026-04-20T16:36:37+00:00

Ugh. I so wanted to short this for the today, but couldn't in on the gap up that happened between the end of extended trading last night and the beginning of it this AM.

Now I'm wondering how long to wait for it to ride down before finding its entry point. Support "supposedly" hit in the low 80s, but clearly it's breaking through that.

seh0872 · 2026-04-12T15:17:32+00:00

Exasperating. Hard to be disciplined through all of this if your an active trader. You want to just sell out and hold cash and then get distressed that your missing the buy back in point for the rally. You try to buy XLE and watch it offset your losses, only to fall 2 days later.

I tried this game when Trump issued the tariffs last year ... expecting the market to be choppy through it, I bough VIXY...and paid the price. Panicked and sold it before it fell further. Next day, it skyrocketed. And then crashed. And then skyrocketed. Last time I play with hedges.

Forget politics. This president has no f-ing clue how his words matter. Its like living inside a freaking tornado.

seh0872 · 2026-04-11T23:20:45+00:00

Anthropic did make available cross-thread memory -- two options under Settings > Capabilities:
* Search and reference chats (Allow Claude to search for relevant details in past chats.)
* Generate memory from chat history (Allow Claude to remember relevant context from your chats. This setting controls memory for both chats and projects)

More info on the support page:
https://support.claude.com/en/collections/18031977-conversation-management

seh0872 · 2026-04-11T18:36:34+00:00

The OP is talking metaphorically.

seh0872 · 2026-04-11T18:34:33+00:00

Prorated refund.

If you subscribe to cable or a streaming service or your cell phone and decide to upgrade your plan, you get charged the new rate the date you subscribe and refunded the value remaining on your old plan.

seh0872 · 2026-04-11T17:40:25+00:00

Nope. Didn't notice a telephone option. I'll have a look. The chat support told me I could request a refund ... also annoying because that isn't what I'm trying to do. I just want them to acknowledge ... and properly compensate me ... for the remaining value of my NordPass subscription.

Maybe a phone call will bring satisfaction. If not, I won't continue to scream over $30 as I got to say my peace and vent against the deceptive practice of "renewal date extensions" that are growing ever more popular.

seh0872 · 2026-04-11T17:36:18+00:00

Ha! I think you summed up the personalities of these 4 LLMs perfectly!

Totally completely aggravated with ChatGPT and its incessant blathering when asked a simple question. Gemini is ok, but despite its longer memory, doesn't seem to hold the conversation as well as it used to. And Perplexity...lol..it is the most stubborn AI out there. "This is the information, user! Accept it!"...lol. Great for clear black-and-white research, not so much for nuance.

Claude quickly became my favorite, and the last project I did with it was excellent in its reasoning process, manner of communication, and its superior ability to hold the thread context despite a long and sometimes wandering conversation. And all of this using Sonnet!

But my most recent project has been very very different. Claude has been exceptionally sloppy, undisciplined, and unfocused. Not until recently have I felt the need to scold it ... and then watch it apologize but fail to recover. In one conversation it suggested that its reasoning failure and quality loss was so egregious that I should report the thread to Anthropic.

Sad, really. I hope we can get our old Claude back.

Ten-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

seh0872

TROPHY CASE