http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?h....biz/article-382132.html&prev=/language_tools 用Google从法语翻译成的英语，凑乎着看吧。 Sunday May 22, 2005 Another definition of the systemic trading Hello with all, This article approaches the topic of the systems of trading while trying to give of it a definition closer to reality than what is usually conveyed by the brokers and the softwares vendors bound for general public. The myth of Cash the Machine One often intends to define the systemic trading as an approach which consists in creating a mechanical system validated by backtests then put in production in a completely autonomous way. The trader then which can make anything else while its system turns. The system of trading is thus seen in its ultimate stage like cash a machine. Reality is however well far from all this. I never saw such automats in the rooms of market. The majority of the automats which turn do not function on bases of technical analysis, it generally acts of systems of arbitration or trading volatilist (hedging car, etc…). Some function on the future ones of indices while being the first to type in the notebook the prices which come to reduce the spread. In this case it is the race at the speed and even connections via SLE GL are not enough any more, one needs a direct connection on Liffe Connect, for example, that only the members (only banks) can obtain. It is thus illusory for a private individual to mount automats based on of Tick by Tick with orders at very short lifespan. This type of approach does not function that within a framework of demonstration. Then nobody lets an automat turn without monitoring and guard insane. There is always at least somebody ready with all to stop in the event of problem. The nonquantifiable met in failure the systemic one Concerning the quantitative systems of trading, the majority of the latter are there to give signals, not to carry out the deals in the place of the trader. A system whatever it is is not never self-sufficing. If the system indicates a signal right before an advertisement major or right before a speech of declaration of war, there is no question of placing an order. A system 100% mechanics will place the order, the trader not. Trader has a global vision of the market which a mechanical system cannot have, in particular with regard to all that is not quantifiable, typically geopolitics or to take a current example: recent uncertainties on Yuan… impossible with backtester since it never arrived in a context of “China, next economic super power”. The major asset of human Trader: power of the brain The brain has a phenomenal power that no computer can reach at present. Its force lies not in a rough computing power (in this field it is very largely exceeded by a simple computer) but in its capacity to integrate extremely different information of nature together to draw some the conclusion. It is able to include/understand and extrapolate. A computer is unable. Thus when it is known that one week will be agitated by uncertainties on Yuan, human Trader will choose to remain apart from the market or at least will strongly reduce its sizes of position. What would make a system 100% mechanics? At best one could say that it is reparamétré or put in pause… but one leaves then the famous 0% of human intervention. A thing is certain: if there remains active he the trader puts in great danger because the movements to come on the market potentially present configurations which to him were never had… the result is unforeseeable. No institutional in the world will bet there above. An ideal system of trading should know to adapt, the fields of the networks of neurons and fuzzy logic has a direction from this point of view. They can be useful if they are used to increase the range of information to be taken into account, they a little less risk to be it if they are taken as a nth means of treatment on the prices. Trader in the middle of the system of trading Does this want to say that the systemic trading is an illusion? Yes if it is a question of speaking about the execution of deals automated based on at. Not if they intervene like general guides and suppliers of signals. It is often heard that a backtesté system which is interpreted by Trader will not present the same performances. It is true since one leaves the possibility of taking or not the signal. However this is valid only if Trader does not know its system, in other words if it does not know why it gains when it gains and why it loses when it loses. A trader which knows well its system will be able to say: “obviously with such a price structure around the deal and such a movement on this other pair of currency I would not have entered… but how to quantify this and include these conditions in the system?”. In this case the trader has two solutions: either to engage an army of researchers with an aim of quantifying all that it sees and all that it knows, or to use a frightening weapon of which he exploits currently only 20% of the capacities: its brain. The system of trading is there to give a framework favorable general. The trader makes the remainder. The system of trading is not there to carry out deals stupidly and mechanically, it is there for saying: “here a signal, when I took this type of deal, in the past I was gaining 50% of time with 40 pips on average of P&L…”. To include/understand the structures of the market by the creation of systems The fact of building systems and of carrying out backtests especially makes it possible to better include/understand the structures of the market. One can then apply his system in all confidence, by knowing why it gains, while knowing to press it to the maximum so that it delivers the most profits possible but also while knowing to put it side when the circumstances are not favorable. The backtests have also the capacity to make discover in Trader in what of Take Profits or the Loss Stop can improve or deteriorate a system. All this lesson makes it possible to give clear hot lines to the daily trading. A redefinition of the systemic trading From my point of view, can be called trading systemic any approach which puts a work of the systematic paramount elements and clearly defines. What is systematic, it is not inevitably a technical signal, it can be as well the risk management or the management of size of position. I never répèterais it enough, the brain is with my direction by far the most powerful tool which is, it is better to learn how to use it to the maximum of his capacities for his trading to spend the years to seek indicators miracles. As regards the emotional problems, you do not make an illusion, when you reach certain amounts by deal they are the same ones with or without system. It will be even worse with a system bus when you must renew it or to find new you are depressed in advance by all the mass of work to achieve. You are then not close passing by again a deal. Your brain on the contrary will be stimulated uninterrupted and will be able to adapt in real time to the changes of conditions of market. a small daily work is less discouraging that a building site which one knows already interminable in advance. Regard the construction of systems and the backtests as tools for assistance and not as an end is and like the only means of arriving there. Moreover best the traders is not computers, they are systemic traders with the direction or I hears it. Philippe Erb for example is very safe discrétionnaire, it has a technical approach of the markets. It is clear, defined, with rules of established decisions and a management of size of coherent position but he can turn around this basic framework to optimize it, he uses his brain. You thus see now in what the systemic definition of trading that I propose is broader and moderate that the skimped vision conveyed by the Vendors Softwares. In conclusion Learn, read, discuss Forex, and hold Trading Diary. Create systems, make statistical and of the backtests of which you will peel principal the deals, either with an aim of find the formula miracle but with an aim of better including/understanding the structure of the market and of still better involving your brain. With these systems think that you create assistants, not substitutes. AddictFX