4 ms·

How did you do 130 papers in 7 months? That’s just over a paper every 2 days. What was the setup, how did you set up a pipeline? Was it R or Python? What was t

How did you do 130 papers in 7 months? That’s just over a paper every 2 days. What was the setup, how did you set up a pipeline? Was it R or Python? What was the data source? I am more surprised by your productivity than anything else.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bcherny 7y ago
It was answered in a comment in that thread. Python+Pandas+Keras. I’d also love source code + data for this; without it, it’s a claim with nothing to back it, yet.
bwilsonkey 7y ago
I don’t think he actually did it. He linked to a crypto scam medium post lol...
- semi-extrinsic 7y ago
  As long as he's not even willing to publish the list of those 130 papers, I think it's OK to be a bit skeptical, yes.
- hobofan 7y ago
  > crypto scam medium post Could you expand on that? I've only skimmed the article, but I don't see any "crypto scams" pushed in the article. The article is just about something the author seems to know about (algorithmic trading), applied to the cryptocurrency market. It does promote the authors project (why else would you write a Medium post), but in the worst case, that would be a normal scam and not a crypto scam.
  - FiberBundle 7y ago
    The whole article just seems like an attempt to steal money from uninformed people. He starts by giving vague information about trading strategies in general, then linking to an article about Renaissance Technologies as an example for successful algorithmic trading, then stating that most trading bots aren't successful and that the crucial differentiator for deciding whose bots to trust is the person's professional experience, which is obviously a reasonable thing to do, however the picture at the beginning of the article of him at a trading desk and him repeatedly mentioning his 7 year experience as a trader combined with the complete lack of any actual proof that his bots are actually profitable, make it seem as if he just tries to profit off his previous experience. He ends the article writing this: "All you’ll need to get started is: 1. $1000 2. To press a single button to get the bots started" Furthermore in the reddit comments in response to the following question: "130 papers re-implemented in 7 months? I'm blown away. Write a software engineering book about how you did it so quickly. Then write a self-help book about having enough motivation to see it through." he writes: "100-hour weeks and a desire for a better life for the ones you love will get you there pretty quickly" This guy seems like a complete fraud, I find it sort of sad that this has landed on the frontpage of HN with that money upvotes.
    - hobofan 7y ago
      Oh don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trust the guy farther than I can throw him either. I just wanted to be a bit pedantic about "normal fraud" vs. "crypto fraud" (= ICO or similar).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
H8crilA 7y ago
There was a fair amount of overlap in the papers. Makes the testing much easier. > So with the papers, I found as many as I could, then I read through them and put them in categories and then tested each category at a time because a lot of papers were kinda saying the same things.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

bcherny 7y ago

It was answered in a comment in that thread. Python+Pandas+Keras. I’d also love source code + data for this; without it, it’s a claim with nothing to back it, yet.

bwilsonkey 7y ago

I don’t think he actually did it. He linked to a crypto scam medium post lol...

semi-extrinsic 7y ago
As long as he's not even willing to publish the list of those 130 papers, I think it's OK to be a bit skeptical, yes.
hobofan 7y ago
> crypto scam medium post Could you expand on that? I've only skimmed the article, but I don't see any "crypto scams" pushed in the article. The article is just about something the author seems to know about (algorithmic trading), applied to the cryptocurrency market. It does promote the authors project (why else would you write a Medium post), but in the worst case, that would be a normal scam and not a crypto scam.
- FiberBundle 7y ago
  The whole article just seems like an attempt to steal money from uninformed people. He starts by giving vague information about trading strategies in general, then linking to an article about Renaissance Technologies as an example for successful algorithmic trading, then stating that most trading bots aren't successful and that the crucial differentiator for deciding whose bots to trust is the person's professional experience, which is obviously a reasonable thing to do, however the picture at the beginning of the article of him at a trading desk and him repeatedly mentioning his 7 year experience as a trader combined with the complete lack of any actual proof that his bots are actually profitable, make it seem as if he just tries to profit off his previous experience. He ends the article writing this: "All you’ll need to get started is: 1. $1000 2. To press a single button to get the bots started" Furthermore in the reddit comments in response to the following question: "130 papers re-implemented in 7 months? I'm blown away. Write a software engineering book about how you did it so quickly. Then write a self-help book about having enough motivation to see it through." he writes: "100-hour weeks and a desire for a better life for the ones you love will get you there pretty quickly" This guy seems like a complete fraud, I find it sort of sad that this has landed on the frontpage of HN with that money upvotes.
  - hobofan 7y ago
    Oh don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trust the guy farther than I can throw him either. I just wanted to be a bit pedantic about "normal fraud" vs. "crypto fraud" (= ICO or similar).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

H8crilA 7y ago

There was a fair amount of overlap in the papers. Makes the testing much easier. > So with the papers, I found as many as I could, then I read through them and put them in categories and then tested each category at a time because a lot of papers were kinda saying the same things.