I used to do it with bitcoin, but not to get rich, just for curiosity.
The most algorithms is just chart reading, playing around with periods, standard deviations etc. You can achieve something really quickly, but it only works if the market jumps up and down within a short time period and stays on the same level if watching a bigger time frame. What if the market drops by 90% suddenly because some bank decided to do something stupid?
The next time I won't work on HFT, but more of risk reduction and long-term investments:
- Markowitz diversification model
- Multi-Market trading, trade on market differences
Another interesting approach would be to exploit trading algorithms, since 99.9% of all trades are algo trades.
What you theoretically could do is use popular trading algorithms, develop a tool to monitor their decisions, adjust decisions weights and see how a simulated market performs on comparion to the real market. Now that you have something like a "slave" market and can go on to the next step and calculate scenarios e.g. 5min ahead and can 99.9% predict where the market will be in 5min.
> Now that you have something like a "slave" market and can go on to the next step and calculate scenarios e.g. 5min ahead and can 99.9% predict where the market will be in 5min.
What most algorithmic trading models that are looking to prey on other algos do is either wait until their model says the market is already in some bad decision state or move the market in some way to make the bad decision state more likely.
- No side-by-side diffs? Didn't see any in screen shots.
- The scopes asked for seem very broad. I may be confused, but it seemed like it was asking for write access to all repositories, public and private. I have access to several private repos (but I don't own them) for which this is unacceptable. If the scope is limited to the ones under github.com/me then it's not as big a deal... In any case, the scary scope list prevented me from experimenting.
- What do you exactly mean by side-by-side diff?
Currently you have diff view between the current HEAD of the Pull Request branch by the base commit.
- Yes, that is true. This is a known issue mentioned by others and there is definitely a need to fix that. ReviewNinja comes from the GitHub Enterprise context, where you usually can trust the internal tool offering, that's why we kept it simple with the permissions in the first place.
Review Ninja is beautiful, but at it's core, it's just slightly more nice stuff on top of pull requests. It can't address the issues such as being able to edit someone else's pull request as part of a code review, can it?
Anything pushed to the branch of a pull request is an edit on the pull request. Once something new is pushed on to the pull request, the voting in ReviewNinja needs to be repeated.
Furthermore, Issues linked to a commit will be linked to all new commits by Review.Ninja automatically, as long as the issue isn't solve. You only merge, once all issues are solved / it is save to merge.
ReviewNinja comes from the GitHub Enterprise context (as we use GitHub Enterprise in our company) and we want to offer an open source code review tool for both GitHub.com and GitHub Enterprise.
Bitbucket is awesome! But I think if we want to support on premise installations with Review.Ninja, BitBucket support would be overkill.
