Why people truly believe that if they share their ideas, they might lose something?
Mostly, because they truly believe in the existence of money, while we live in a world that only the belief of money truly exists, not the concept of it.
The Main idea of money is mostly to be controlled by minds of those who have created the concept. And when you realize this you will free your mind to understand why open source, freedom of speech, and autonomous systems, have one thing in common...
They are here to free your mind from it's illusions, and that is why you choose the story of Robin Hood. (because as a child you already didn't believe in money.)
Let's add to this philosophy, the reason why we are all desiring to have an autonomous system that will trade without any supervision, because we are Mesmerized by the dream that one day, we will truly be free from the need of money.
And that day is coming sooner than you can imagine, as for all the wars, the pains of human struggle, and lack of unity is creating loving truth, that common contribution to all always had a greater outcome.

You don't believe that the markets are a zero-sum game? If wealth creation isn't your goal, then what brings you here to this forum? (no pun)

Dear Grant, your belief of whatever the markets are, is just a belief, it can't be proven in any realistic terms. But this is all Economic Theory... At the rate our old fashion minds are progressing, soon whatever you call markets will vanish into dreamland hobby.
And we are all here to play mathematical mind games, to fill in the time of no zero sum game, but the probability of taking the advantage when there is time for it.

Hello Tip.
It's obvious that we look with a different lens, which is interesting. With this being said I try to grasp your philosophical/spiritual take on at trading/economics/markets. What makes you think that market places (exchanges, platforms, etc) will vanish? And which factors will play role in this?

If people will not stop the use of AI, soon there will not be any money, not for AI, not for investing, and we all will have time only for philosophy games. That is my old fashion thinking... :-)
But I think people are really tired from old fashion work, that is why they are choosing automation. and why not, it would clear our mind from all the boring competitions that didn't create anything good.

Do you mean the use of AI for trading specifically or more in general? If you mean the first, then realise that simply adding AI to your trading logic isn't gonna give you an edge in most cases, unless you really understand how to apply it (like the Rentech guys).
I shake my head when I see all those 'finfluencers' promoting AI as a quick rich scheme.

My old fashion view is that the AI bubble will burst.

I don't think the bubble will burst, if AI is getting into the infrastructure.

Let me ask you Tip, which percentage of organisations and individuals truly benefit from the use of AI? (and I mean financially of course)
Another question from a different perspective, are you aware of the gigantic sums of money that are floating around between Nvidia, OpenAI, Meta, Google, Oracle, etc? My instinct tells this bubble will burst. Maybe not completely, but I believe that the hype is much stronger than the added value of AI, at least for now.

I've read your impressive posts with sofisticated ML examples, but >99% of individuals are not at this level of understanding (yes, me included)

>Let me ask you Tip, which percentage of organizations and individuals truly benefit from the use of AI?

First Thank you for your sharing and paying attention to details., as for your question, I don't believe anyone has an answer to that question, because if AI is being integrated into the Infrastructure, than we are stepping into a new different kind of reality, where old economical equations don't apply. It is very hard for all human beings to grasp that automation is here to stay, and the old labor is going to vanish from reality. So for the benefits of financial outcome, who ever steps in first and takes the advantage will gain in the beginning but as time passes and the more automation will influence the lifestyle of everyone the adaptation into new prospects of financial gain will be needed, if the public learns to adapt and profits from the changes otherwise even those that succeed in the beginning to adapt and profit, will soon lose their gains, as the number of customers able to maintain a stable income will reduce, as it is already happening.

>I've read your impressive posts with sophisticated ML examples, but >99% of individuals are not at this level of understanding (yes, me included)

Thank you very much, but all questions can be asked and learnt with the LLMs regarding the sophisticated ideas.

Hi JCL!

I'm testing the Monte Carlo Reality Check in the Evaluation Shell with
Workshop6c and would like to confirm whether the behavior below is expected.

My MRC configuration is essentially:

Command,MRC
Method,Train
Cycles,10

Workshop6c uses WFO training and NumCores = -2.

I repeated the same Step 5 MRC command in separate Zorro processes and observed:

First experiment:
- 10 completed runs
- 8 runs: P-Value 0.0%, Result is significant
- 2 runs: P-Value 10.0%, Result insignificant
- no non-empty Errors.txt

Second experiment:
- 20 completed runs
- 17 runs: P-Value 0.0%, Result is significant
- 3 runs: P-Value 10.0%, Result insignificant
- no non-empty Errors.txt

I did not observe intermediate p-values. All results were either 0.0% or
10.0%.

After inspecting the Evaluation Shell MRC path, my current interpretation is
that the p-value is incremented in steps equivalent to:

100 / NumTotalCycles

Therefore, with Cycles=10, the p-value resolution is 10 percentage points:

- zero randomized exceedances -> P-Value 0.0%
- one randomized exceedance -> P-Value 10.0%

At a 5% significance threshold, one randomized exceedance therefore changes
the classification from significant to insignificant. This seems consistent
with ordinary Monte Carlo sampling variability rather than necessarily an
Evaluation Shell defect.

Could you please confirm the following?

1. Is alternating between 0.0% and 10.0% expected with Cycles=10?

2. Does the Cycles value include the original/reference cycle, or does it
represent only randomized cycles?

3. Is Cycles=10 intended only as a quick diagnostic setting?

4. What number of cycles is recommended for evaluating a 5% significance
threshold? Would 100 cycles be a reasonable minimum?

5. With Method=Train, is it expected that the MRC retraining overwrites the
normal WFO parameter and factor files, such as Workshop6c.par,
Workshop6c_1.par, etc.?

6. Is there a supported way to set or record the random seed used by the MRC?

7. Can NumCores=-2 change the random sequence or reproducibility of the MRC?
Should a reproducibility diagnostic use a single core?

Each invocation starts a new Zorro process. The strategy, data, MRC
configuration, and Step 1-4 prerequisite artifacts remain the same, but
Method=Train regenerates the normal WFO outputs during every MRC run.

I am using a locally adapted headless dispatcher around the Evaluation Shell.

Thanks.