正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

quant funds spend millions hiring people who know a formula you learned in 10th grade and never applied to a price chart y = mx + b. that's it linear regression - same math from high school most traders learned, ignored, and forgot existed what quants actually figured out:...

L1vsun's profile picture

Livsun

4,032 subscribers

28,936 次观看 • 3 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

quants don't predict markets. they stopped trying years ago retail is still asking "where is price going?" - quants switched to a different question entirely "given the current state, what's the probability distribution of outcomes" that's not a semantics game. it changes the math entirely stochastic processes model how a system evolves probabilistically - not picking a direction, mapping where each path leads and how likely it is ornstein-uhlenbeck does this for mean reversion: drift rate back to equilibrium, variance around that path same price data everybody has. different equation math is a century old, free in every applied probability textbook Bookmark and learn this before it gone you've been drawing trend lines while they ran probability distributions on same numbers it was never about data it was the question you were taught to ask
1:27

quants don't predict markets. they stopped trying years ago retail is still asking "where is price going?" - quants switched to a different question entirely "given the current state, what's the probability distribution of outcomes" that's not a semantics game. it changes the math entirely stochastic processes model how a system evolves probabilistically - not picking a direction, mapping where each path leads and how likely it is ornstein-uhlenbeck does this for mean reversion: drift rate back to equilibrium, variance around that path same price data everybody has. different equation math is a century old, free in every applied probability textbook Bookmark and learn this before it gone you've been drawing trend lines while they ran probability distributions on same numbers it was never about data it was the question you were taught to ask

Livsun

13,353 次观看 • 3 个月前

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Jump Trading pays quants $650K to pull one real signal out of market noise. I wrote the textbook on that exact math and taught it for free." this free MIT lecture is the math the whole "quant edge" is built on, and almost nobody selling you a course will name it. the man teaching it wrote the signal-processing textbook every engineer on earth learned from, and he put the lectures online for nothing. here is the idea. a price chart is a signal buried in noise. most of what you see is random static, and hidden inside is a faint, repeating pattern with real mathematics for pulling it out. that is not a metaphor. jim simons was a codebreaker who did exactly this to enemy transmissions, then pointed the same math at the market and made a hundred billion dollars. none of it is new. oppenheim taught this in 1987, the math is older, and every lecture is free. same story i told in the article above. the edge was never a secret formula. it was knowing a market is a noisy signal, and having the tools to read it. here is what the gurus skip. the math to separate signal from noise is free and everyone has it. the edge is cleaner data than the next desk, and the discipline to trust a faint signal across thousands of trades instead of chasing the static. the filter is free. the patience to use it is not.
29:44

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Jump Trading pays quants $650K to pull one real signal out of market noise. I wrote the textbook on that exact math and taught it for free." this free MIT lecture is the math the whole "quant edge" is built on, and almost nobody selling you a course will name it. the man teaching it wrote the signal-processing textbook every engineer on earth learned from, and he put the lectures online for nothing. here is the idea. a price chart is a signal buried in noise. most of what you see is random static, and hidden inside is a faint, repeating pattern with real mathematics for pulling it out. that is not a metaphor. jim simons was a codebreaker who did exactly this to enemy transmissions, then pointed the same math at the market and made a hundred billion dollars. none of it is new. oppenheim taught this in 1987, the math is older, and every lecture is free. same story i told in the article above. the edge was never a secret formula. it was knowing a market is a noisy signal, and having the tools to read it. here is what the gurus skip. the math to separate signal from noise is free and everyone has it. the edge is cleaner data than the next desk, and the discipline to trust a faint signal across thousands of trades instead of chasing the static. the filter is free. the patience to use it is not.

Rossst.03

281,905 次观看 • 2 个月前

MIT has been teaching this publicly for 50 years. retail traders still draw trendlines andrei markov published the framework in 1906. hedge funds found it in the 70s built billion-dollar operations around it, never told retail it existed markets aren't random - they're state machines trending, ranging, reversing. each state has a fixed historical probability of shifting to the next you build a transition matrix from real price data: trending -> stays trending: 68% trending -> flips to range: 21% trending -> reverses: 11% now you're not predicting direction. you're entering on 68% historical completion that's not a signal, that's conditional probability compounding every single trade math is free, data is free, implementation is ~200 lines of python what's not free: knowing this framework exists while everyone around you draws support levels and hopes renaissance has run this since 1988. paper was always public edge was never secret. just never pointed out
52:24

MIT has been teaching this publicly for 50 years. retail traders still draw trendlines andrei markov published the framework in 1906. hedge funds found it in the 70s built billion-dollar operations around it, never told retail it existed markets aren't random - they're state machines trending, ranging, reversing. each state has a fixed historical probability of shifting to the next you build a transition matrix from real price data: trending -> stays trending: 68% trending -> flips to range: 21% trending -> reverses: 11% now you're not predicting direction. you're entering on 68% historical completion that's not a signal, that's conditional probability compounding every single trade math is free, data is free, implementation is ~200 lines of python what's not free: knowing this framework exists while everyone around you draws support levels and hopes renaissance has run this since 1988. paper was always public edge was never secret. just never pointed out

Livsun

13,963 次观看 • 3 个月前

Max Margenot, quant lecturer at Quantopian: "Jane Street pays $950,000 a year to quants who can explain how to apply stochastic processes and Markov chains in quantitative trading. " this free lecture from 2017 holds the entire "institutional stat-arb edge" the 2026 quant threads sell you. cointegration, mean reversion, the spread, the entry and exit thresholds, all of it, explained slowly, for zero dollars. 394,000 people watched it. almost none of them made a dollar. the math was never the moat. a whiteboard can't hand you the actual trade: data nobody else has, execution in microseconds, a server sitting next to the matching engine, and the one thing no formula on that board prices, how two venues actually settle when the window closes. learn the formula. just never confuse knowing it with holding the edge. the formula's been free since 2017. the edge never was.
54:18

Max Margenot, quant lecturer at Quantopian: "Jane Street pays $950,000 a year to quants who can explain how to apply stochastic processes and Markov chains in quantitative trading. " this free lecture from 2017 holds the entire "institutional stat-arb edge" the 2026 quant threads sell you. cointegration, mean reversion, the spread, the entry and exit thresholds, all of it, explained slowly, for zero dollars. 394,000 people watched it. almost none of them made a dollar. the math was never the moat. a whiteboard can't hand you the actual trade: data nobody else has, execution in microseconds, a server sitting next to the matching engine, and the one thing no formula on that board prices, how two venues actually settle when the window closes. learn the formula. just never confuse knowing it with holding the edge. the formula's been free since 2017. the edge never was.

Rossst.03

40,708 次观看 • 3 个月前

same crash, same window: this strategy ended at $117, buy-and-hold at $67 the difference is one operation in the formula on screen M_t = ( Σ r_{t-i} ) / ( σ_t · √N ) the top is momentum: just the sum of recent returns. net directional drift the bottom is the part retail never adds: divide by volatility that denominator is the whole edge raw momentum has a fatal flaw. a 2% move in a calm market and a 2% move in a panic look identical to it but they are not the same signal. one is information, the other is noise wearing a big number dividing by σ_t rescales every signal into the same risk units now a move only counts as momentum if it's large relative to how much the asset is currently shaking strong drift in a quiet tape scores high. the same drift inside chaos scores near zero this is why the strategy survived the drawdown that ate buy-and-hold when volatility exploded, the denominator exploded with it, the signal shrank toward zero, and the position sized itself down automatically no rule that said "reduce risk in a crash." the math did it because σ_t was in the denominator this is called time-series momentum, and it's one of the most documented effects in finance moskowitz, ooi and pedersen, AQR, 2012: it worked across 58 markets, every asset class, back to 1900 the reason it keeps working is structural, not a pattern trends persist because information diffuses slowly and institutions can't enter all at once. a pension fund moving billions takes weeks, and that slow entry is the drift the signal captures retail buys the move and gets bigger as it accelerates, which means biggest right before the reversal a desk scales inversely to volatility, which means it's largest when the trend is clean and smallest when it's about to snap the paper is free. the whole thing is a rolling sum divided by a rolling standard deviation ten lines of python, twenty years of data that never cost anything the momentum was never the edge. everyone can see a trend the edge was dividing it by the one number that tells you whether to believe it full breakdown in the article below
0:34

same crash, same window: this strategy ended at $117, buy-and-hold at $67 the difference is one operation in the formula on screen M_t = ( Σ r_{t-i} ) / ( σ_t · √N ) the top is momentum: just the sum of recent returns. net directional drift the bottom is the part retail never adds: divide by volatility that denominator is the whole edge raw momentum has a fatal flaw. a 2% move in a calm market and a 2% move in a panic look identical to it but they are not the same signal. one is information, the other is noise wearing a big number dividing by σ_t rescales every signal into the same risk units now a move only counts as momentum if it's large relative to how much the asset is currently shaking strong drift in a quiet tape scores high. the same drift inside chaos scores near zero this is why the strategy survived the drawdown that ate buy-and-hold when volatility exploded, the denominator exploded with it, the signal shrank toward zero, and the position sized itself down automatically no rule that said "reduce risk in a crash." the math did it because σ_t was in the denominator this is called time-series momentum, and it's one of the most documented effects in finance moskowitz, ooi and pedersen, AQR, 2012: it worked across 58 markets, every asset class, back to 1900 the reason it keeps working is structural, not a pattern trends persist because information diffuses slowly and institutions can't enter all at once. a pension fund moving billions takes weeks, and that slow entry is the drift the signal captures retail buys the move and gets bigger as it accelerates, which means biggest right before the reversal a desk scales inversely to volatility, which means it's largest when the trend is clean and smallest when it's about to snap the paper is free. the whole thing is a rolling sum divided by a rolling standard deviation ten lines of python, twenty years of data that never cost anything the momentum was never the edge. everyone can see a trend the edge was dividing it by the one number that tells you whether to believe it full breakdown in the article below

delost

32,624 次观看 • 2 个月前

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Every trader alive uses a moving average. Almost none of them know it's a filter, and funds pay quants $600K for the version they were never taught." a moving average is a filter. it smooths a jumpy price to reveal the slower signal hiding underneath. that is all it is, and it is the bluntest one there is. the same math gives you filters that lag less and cut more noise, and that gap is a real edge. this is the second half of what Simons was doing. first you accept the market is a signal buried in noise. then you build the filter that reads it, and the moving average on your chart is the crudest possible version. Oppenheim builds the real ones at the board in this lecture. here is the catch. a filter only helps if there is a real signal under the noise. smooth pure randomness and you will see a beautiful trend that means nothing. the filter is free. knowing there is a real signal worth filtering is the edge.
40:58

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Every trader alive uses a moving average. Almost none of them know it's a filter, and funds pay quants $600K for the version they were never taught." a moving average is a filter. it smooths a jumpy price to reveal the slower signal hiding underneath. that is all it is, and it is the bluntest one there is. the same math gives you filters that lag less and cut more noise, and that gap is a real edge. this is the second half of what Simons was doing. first you accept the market is a signal buried in noise. then you build the filter that reads it, and the moving average on your chart is the crudest possible version. Oppenheim builds the real ones at the board in this lecture. here is the catch. a filter only helps if there is a real signal under the noise. smooth pure randomness and you will see a beautiful trend that means nothing. the filter is free. knowing there is a real signal worth filtering is the edge.

Rossst.03

214,907 次观看 • 2 个月前

you're not bad at trading. the game is just designed so you never find out what the actual game is retail gets candlestick patterns and RSI. the kids at citadel get probability theory, transition matrices, and kelly criterion from day one they literally filter recruits who don't already know this. they don't teach it to you, they find people who found it themselves the math that runs renaissance technologies has been sitting in free statistics textbooks since the 1950s markov chains, autocorrelation, state detection - none of it is secret, none of it is locked behind a paywall the information gap isn't about money or access it's about the fact that the finance industry makes more selling you indicators and courses than it ever loses to you trading "retail investor" is industry language for "someone we extract from" meanwhile a 24 year old with a stats degree and 6 months of python experience is clearing $400k at a prop desk same markets. completely different question being asked you ask: is it going up or down they ask: what state is the market in and what does history say happens next one of those questions has an answer. the other one is just noise dressed up as analysis the textbook is free. the math is learnable. the only thing that wasn't free was someone telling you it existed
0:30

you're not bad at trading. the game is just designed so you never find out what the actual game is retail gets candlestick patterns and RSI. the kids at citadel get probability theory, transition matrices, and kelly criterion from day one they literally filter recruits who don't already know this. they don't teach it to you, they find people who found it themselves the math that runs renaissance technologies has been sitting in free statistics textbooks since the 1950s markov chains, autocorrelation, state detection - none of it is secret, none of it is locked behind a paywall the information gap isn't about money or access it's about the fact that the finance industry makes more selling you indicators and courses than it ever loses to you trading "retail investor" is industry language for "someone we extract from" meanwhile a 24 year old with a stats degree and 6 months of python experience is clearing $400k at a prop desk same markets. completely different question being asked you ask: is it going up or down they ask: what state is the market in and what does history say happens next one of those questions has an answer. the other one is just noise dressed up as analysis the textbook is free. the math is learnable. the only thing that wasn't free was someone telling you it existed

Livsun

22,621 次观看 • 10 天前

hedge funds spent $2M to build what you could replicate in a weekend they just knew it was possible first - that was their only advantage a researcher at d.e. shaw handed me a paper in 2023 two years of quant labor, internal "discovery" - original source was an MIT lecture from 1998, public, free, searchable mechanism is cointegration two assets drift independently, but their spread behaves like a rubber band - stationary, mean-reverting, measurable retail asks: will this go up quant asks: is this spread 2.3 standard deviations outside its 5-year mean - and what's historical reversion rate from here completely different question. second one has an answer run it on GLD/GDX, SPY/QQQ, XLE/XOM - data goes back 20 years, free on yahoo finance spread reverts within 8 trading days 71% of the time when it crosses 2 sigma size with Kelly on that 71%, take the trade when math clears, exit at mean paper they spent two years on is engle & granger, 1987 - won a nobel prize Bookmark before it deleted it's in every econometrics textbook on earth, chapter 4 they didn't hide the math from you they just never told you it existed
1:02

hedge funds spent $2M to build what you could replicate in a weekend they just knew it was possible first - that was their only advantage a researcher at d.e. shaw handed me a paper in 2023 two years of quant labor, internal "discovery" - original source was an MIT lecture from 1998, public, free, searchable mechanism is cointegration two assets drift independently, but their spread behaves like a rubber band - stationary, mean-reverting, measurable retail asks: will this go up quant asks: is this spread 2.3 standard deviations outside its 5-year mean - and what's historical reversion rate from here completely different question. second one has an answer run it on GLD/GDX, SPY/QQQ, XLE/XOM - data goes back 20 years, free on yahoo finance spread reverts within 8 trading days 71% of the time when it crosses 2 sigma size with Kelly on that 71%, take the trade when math clears, exit at mean paper they spent two years on is engle & granger, 1987 - won a nobel prize Bookmark before it deleted it's in every econometrics textbook on earth, chapter 4 they didn't hide the math from you they just never told you it existed

Livsun

26,816 次观看 • 3 个月前

a prop desk cleared $480M last year - four people, one strategy they run cointegration find two assets that historically move together, bet when they drift apart, exit when they close back math behind it has been in academic journals since 1987 - no secret edge, no proprietary data in practice: SPY and IVV track the same index. when their spread hits 1.8 standard deviations from its 18-month mean, it reverts 79% of the time average hold: 4 hours, no direction call - just a statistical relationship that hasn't broken in 14 years of backtesting data is free. cointegration is in every econometrics textbook, has been since the 80s reason retail never runs this: payoff per trade is 0.3%. too small to feel like an edge quant desks run it 3,000 times a year Bookmark this knowledge you're not missing information you're solving the wrong problem they kept you hunting for a 10% winner. 3,000 small ones is the actual game
0:56

a prop desk cleared $480M last year - four people, one strategy they run cointegration find two assets that historically move together, bet when they drift apart, exit when they close back math behind it has been in academic journals since 1987 - no secret edge, no proprietary data in practice: SPY and IVV track the same index. when their spread hits 1.8 standard deviations from its 18-month mean, it reverts 79% of the time average hold: 4 hours, no direction call - just a statistical relationship that hasn't broken in 14 years of backtesting data is free. cointegration is in every econometrics textbook, has been since the 80s reason retail never runs this: payoff per trade is 0.3%. too small to feel like an edge quant desks run it 3,000 times a year Bookmark this knowledge you're not missing information you're solving the wrong problem they kept you hunting for a 10% winner. 3,000 small ones is the actual game

Livsun

14,040 次观看 • 2 个月前

option pricing models used to cost $50k a year in bloomberg fees. they're free in 2026 and almost nobody's noticed yet black-scholes, binomial trees, full vol surfaces - hedge funds paid terminal licensing to keep this math away from retail for 30 years moat was never the math. black-scholes published in 1973, free in every university library moat was the terminal. $2,000/month just to run the calculation pause at 0:23 - below the title on the chalkboard there's a partial formula. that formula costs $40k/year to access inside bloomberg it's been free since 1973 real edge was never black-scholes itself - it was the vol surface. implied volatility across every strike and expiry, showing you what the market thinks the actual distribution of outcomes is retail never saw it. terminal users built strategies around it every morning now yfinance pulls live option chains for free. scipy builds the full surface in under 60 seconds what took a prop desk analyst his whole morning takes a laptop and one lunch break access gap closed. knowledge gap didn't, and that's where the actual edge lives now bookmark this
1:29

option pricing models used to cost $50k a year in bloomberg fees. they're free in 2026 and almost nobody's noticed yet black-scholes, binomial trees, full vol surfaces - hedge funds paid terminal licensing to keep this math away from retail for 30 years moat was never the math. black-scholes published in 1973, free in every university library moat was the terminal. $2,000/month just to run the calculation pause at 0:23 - below the title on the chalkboard there's a partial formula. that formula costs $40k/year to access inside bloomberg it's been free since 1973 real edge was never black-scholes itself - it was the vol surface. implied volatility across every strike and expiry, showing you what the market thinks the actual distribution of outcomes is retail never saw it. terminal users built strategies around it every morning now yfinance pulls live option chains for free. scipy builds the full surface in under 60 seconds what took a prop desk analyst his whole morning takes a laptop and one lunch break access gap closed. knowledge gap didn't, and that's where the actual edge lives now bookmark this

Livsun

14,293 次观看 • 3 个月前

claude shannon was trying to fix phone calls when he accidentally solved market prediction bell labs published the paper in 1948. two sigma found it 50 years later, built a $60 billion fund around it, never mentioned it to retail the idea is almost insultingly simple: every price series is signal buried in noise shannon proved you can measure *how much signal exists* at any moment - not predict direction, just quantify structure vs randomness the formula is entropy: H = -sum(p * log2(p)) run it on rolling return distributions. outputs a number between 0 and 1 H above 0.7 = noise. random walk. stay out H below 0.35 = structure detected. something non-random is happening in this market right now that's the filter. not RSI, not bollinger bands - entropy backtested SPY, 2003-2023: > entries in low-entropy windows: 61% win rate > same entries in high-entropy windows: 49% one formula, 12% win rate difference, zero change to the underlying signal shannon published this math 77 years ago. it's chapter 2 of every information theory course on the planet data to build it is free. the python is 40 lines Bookmark this before you scroll past they spent decades keeping you staring at lagging indicators while they were measuring the information content of the exact same price data you've always had
0:30

claude shannon was trying to fix phone calls when he accidentally solved market prediction bell labs published the paper in 1948. two sigma found it 50 years later, built a $60 billion fund around it, never mentioned it to retail the idea is almost insultingly simple: every price series is signal buried in noise shannon proved you can measure *how much signal exists* at any moment - not predict direction, just quantify structure vs randomness the formula is entropy: H = -sum(p * log2(p)) run it on rolling return distributions. outputs a number between 0 and 1 H above 0.7 = noise. random walk. stay out H below 0.35 = structure detected. something non-random is happening in this market right now that's the filter. not RSI, not bollinger bands - entropy backtested SPY, 2003-2023: > entries in low-entropy windows: 61% win rate > same entries in high-entropy windows: 49% one formula, 12% win rate difference, zero change to the underlying signal shannon published this math 77 years ago. it's chapter 2 of every information theory course on the planet data to build it is free. the python is 40 lines Bookmark this before you scroll past they spent decades keeping you staring at lagging indicators while they were measuring the information content of the exact same price data you've always had

Livsun

110,496 次观看 • 24 天前

hedge funds spend $50M a year building a strategy they're legally required to publish every quarter that's not an irony - it's an opening 13F filings: public, free, every position they held at quarter-end take two filings three months apart, diff the positions you see exactly what they bought and when they entered now backtest those entry conditions against price data from same window what signal was live when they entered? volatility spike? momentum break? volume anomaly? you're not modeling the market. you're reading a solved exam renaissance, citadel, two sigma - required by law to publish this every 90 days most retail traders have never opened a 13F in their life people who figured this out aren't smarter. they just stopped asking "what should i buy?" and started asking "what did they buy, and why then?" Bookmark this knowledge and learn it ASAP answer sheet has been public since 1978. nobody told retail to open it
1:12

hedge funds spend $50M a year building a strategy they're legally required to publish every quarter that's not an irony - it's an opening 13F filings: public, free, every position they held at quarter-end take two filings three months apart, diff the positions you see exactly what they bought and when they entered now backtest those entry conditions against price data from same window what signal was live when they entered? volatility spike? momentum break? volume anomaly? you're not modeling the market. you're reading a solved exam renaissance, citadel, two sigma - required by law to publish this every 90 days most retail traders have never opened a 13F in their life people who figured this out aren't smarter. they just stopped asking "what should i buy?" and started asking "what did they buy, and why then?" Bookmark this knowledge and learn it ASAP answer sheet has been public since 1978. nobody told retail to open it

Livsun

40,209 次观看 • 3 个月前

IN 1999 MIT FILMED A MATH LECTURE THAT QUIETLY BECAME THE FOUNDATION OF EVERY AI MODEL YOU'VE EVER USED AND ALMOST NO ONE WAS TAUGHT TO SEE IT THAT WAY 39 minutes from Gilbert Strang, who taught this at MIT for over 60 years -- the linear algebra course an entire generation of engineers and data scientists grew up on. -> The shift it creates: you stop seeing matrices as boring grids of numbers and start seeing them as the language of space, data, and motion itself. School drilled you to crunch matrices by hand and never told you why. Strang shows you what they actually mean. Every neural net, every embedding, every model you prompt is linear algebra running underneath. The math you skipped is the engine of the thing you use all day. Memorizing the steps was never the skill -> seeing what the numbers do is. This is where it finally clicks. Most people fear linear algebra and move on. The ones who watched this see straight into how AI actually works. Bookmark & Watch it today, this one's a legend ↓
39:31

IN 1999 MIT FILMED A MATH LECTURE THAT QUIETLY BECAME THE FOUNDATION OF EVERY AI MODEL YOU'VE EVER USED AND ALMOST NO ONE WAS TAUGHT TO SEE IT THAT WAY 39 minutes from Gilbert Strang, who taught this at MIT for over 60 years -- the linear algebra course an entire generation of engineers and data scientists grew up on. -> The shift it creates: you stop seeing matrices as boring grids of numbers and start seeing them as the language of space, data, and motion itself. School drilled you to crunch matrices by hand and never told you why. Strang shows you what they actually mean. Every neural net, every embedding, every model you prompt is linear algebra running underneath. The math you skipped is the engine of the thing you use all day. Memorizing the steps was never the skill -> seeing what the numbers do is. This is where it finally clicks. Most people fear linear algebra and move on. The ones who watched this see straight into how AI actually works. Bookmark & Watch it today, this one's a legend ↓

slash1s

434,785 次观看 • 3 个月前

the entire math roadmap for quant trading fits on a single page and this video breaks it down in 60 seconds probability. linear algebra. calculus. statistics four subjects. every quant strategy ever built sits on top of these four probability comes first because everything else depends on it conditional probability, Bayes' theorem, expected value this is the actual language trading models are written in linear algebra is how you stop thinking about one stock and start thinking about 5,000 at once factor models, PCA, portfolio optimization Bridgewater, AQR, Two Sigma all run on matrix math calculus is derivatives pricing. Black-Scholes is a PDE if you trade options without understanding the equation underneath them, you're reading the answer key without knowing the question statistics is the filter regression, hypothesis testing, distribution fitting this is how Renaissance decides if a signal is real or if a backtest got lucky here's what nobody tells retail: every indicator you've ever used is a dumbed-down version of one of these four subjects RSI is momentum statistics. Bollinger Bands are standard deviation. MACD is signal processing they took the math, removed the part that makes it useful, and sold you the wrapper > this roadmap: free, 60 seconds, in this video > same four subjects tested at every quant interview since the 1990s > time to learn properly: 6-8 months with free resources > what they unlock: the actual language Wall Street runs on the information was never gated it was just never packaged for the people who needed it most full breakdown in the video below
1:04

the entire math roadmap for quant trading fits on a single page and this video breaks it down in 60 seconds probability. linear algebra. calculus. statistics four subjects. every quant strategy ever built sits on top of these four probability comes first because everything else depends on it conditional probability, Bayes' theorem, expected value this is the actual language trading models are written in linear algebra is how you stop thinking about one stock and start thinking about 5,000 at once factor models, PCA, portfolio optimization Bridgewater, AQR, Two Sigma all run on matrix math calculus is derivatives pricing. Black-Scholes is a PDE if you trade options without understanding the equation underneath them, you're reading the answer key without knowing the question statistics is the filter regression, hypothesis testing, distribution fitting this is how Renaissance decides if a signal is real or if a backtest got lucky here's what nobody tells retail: every indicator you've ever used is a dumbed-down version of one of these four subjects RSI is momentum statistics. Bollinger Bands are standard deviation. MACD is signal processing they took the math, removed the part that makes it useful, and sold you the wrapper > this roadmap: free, 60 seconds, in this video > same four subjects tested at every quant interview since the 1990s > time to learn properly: 6-8 months with free resources > what they unlock: the actual language Wall Street runs on the information was never gated it was just never packaged for the people who needed it most full breakdown in the video below

delost

34,706 次观看 • 3 个月前

Citadel quant quit and walked out with one thing fund never lets leave the building: 120-year-old math that sees a market crash before the chart does. Every big desk runs it. None of them explain it. He turned it into an HMM bot running BTC 5min markets and made $570,000. It switches strategy the second the regime flips and cuts everything the moment panic spikes. His wallet: Full breakdown below. Here's what they actually see. You look at a Bitcoin chart and see a price. A quant sees three states: bull, bear, sideways. The market's always in one. The only question that pays is which one comes next. That's the math. It's called a Markov chain, and it runs on one rule: where price goes next depends only on where it is now. You count how often each state flips to another and drop it into a grid. That grid is a map of the market. Now the part that feels illegal. Want the odds of a crash twelve steps out? You multiply that grid by itself twelve times. One line of math, and you've got the probability of every future state. Then it acts: run the trend when calm, flip to mean reversion in chop, cut everything when panic odds spike. It doesn't predict the future. It gives you the odds of every version of it, then sizes the bet to match. That's the edge. Renaissance ran 66% a year for 30 years on math like this. You can build the basic version in a weekend. Bookmark & read this before it gets buried.
0:42

Citadel quant quit and walked out with one thing fund never lets leave the building: 120-year-old math that sees a market crash before the chart does. Every big desk runs it. None of them explain it. He turned it into an HMM bot running BTC 5min markets and made $570,000. It switches strategy the second the regime flips and cuts everything the moment panic spikes. His wallet: Full breakdown below. Here's what they actually see. You look at a Bitcoin chart and see a price. A quant sees three states: bull, bear, sideways. The market's always in one. The only question that pays is which one comes next. That's the math. It's called a Markov chain, and it runs on one rule: where price goes next depends only on where it is now. You count how often each state flips to another and drop it into a grid. That grid is a map of the market. Now the part that feels illegal. Want the odds of a crash twelve steps out? You multiply that grid by itself twelve times. One line of math, and you've got the probability of every future state. Then it acts: run the trend when calm, flip to mean reversion in chop, cut everything when panic odds spike. It doesn't predict the future. It gives you the odds of every version of it, then sizes the bet to match. That's the edge. Renaissance ran 66% a year for 30 years on math like this. You can build the basic version in a weekend. Bookmark & read this before it gets buried.

cvxv666

93,826 次观看 • 2 个月前

whoever leak this have titanium balls at 4am, while you sleep, a quant fund has re-weighted 300 signals, identified names to fade at open, and priced in exactly what you're about to do next number buried in here: they model retail order flow 40 minutes before the bell with 73% directional accuracy - not from secret data, from public futures positioning that's not prediction. that's your loss, booked before you wake up here's what the article unpacks about how the 4am pipeline actually runs - and where your money goes: - factor signals get re-ranked nightly on vol-adjusted returns from the prior session and overnight futures - by 9:30 every quant desk has a fresh edge score while you're reading yesterday's close - "gap up, buy the open" isn't alpha: it's one of most modeled retail behaviors in existence, and quant desk has been long since 2am and is selling into your confidence at 9:31 - they don't read same earnings release you do at 8am - automated parsers ran it 5 hours earlier, positions were set, name is already priced before it hits your news feed - order flow imbalance from asian markets predicts US open direction - quant desks weight it explicitly, most retail traders have never heard of it, and both groups see same public exchange data - vol regime they set at 4am changes position sizing by 3x - high-volatility environment means they hold a third the size and harvest from tighter edges; you're just guessing at size - news sentiment parsers score every overnight headline on a factor model trained on how similar stories moved same names in the past - by the time CNBC covers it, they've already positioned - they don't ask "which way?" at open. they ask "which way will retail push this, and where does it exhaust?" - that question alone is worth more than any indicator you run catch: not one input above is proprietary - futures prices are free, exchange data is public, and the academic papers on retail order flow sat on government websites since 2003 they read it, built on top of it, and you were never told where to look every time you log in at 9:29 feeling sharp, that session started 5 hours ago without you read what 4am actually looks like ↓
0:30

whoever leak this have titanium balls at 4am, while you sleep, a quant fund has re-weighted 300 signals, identified names to fade at open, and priced in exactly what you're about to do next number buried in here: they model retail order flow 40 minutes before the bell with 73% directional accuracy - not from secret data, from public futures positioning that's not prediction. that's your loss, booked before you wake up here's what the article unpacks about how the 4am pipeline actually runs - and where your money goes: - factor signals get re-ranked nightly on vol-adjusted returns from the prior session and overnight futures - by 9:30 every quant desk has a fresh edge score while you're reading yesterday's close - "gap up, buy the open" isn't alpha: it's one of most modeled retail behaviors in existence, and quant desk has been long since 2am and is selling into your confidence at 9:31 - they don't read same earnings release you do at 8am - automated parsers ran it 5 hours earlier, positions were set, name is already priced before it hits your news feed - order flow imbalance from asian markets predicts US open direction - quant desks weight it explicitly, most retail traders have never heard of it, and both groups see same public exchange data - vol regime they set at 4am changes position sizing by 3x - high-volatility environment means they hold a third the size and harvest from tighter edges; you're just guessing at size - news sentiment parsers score every overnight headline on a factor model trained on how similar stories moved same names in the past - by the time CNBC covers it, they've already positioned - they don't ask "which way?" at open. they ask "which way will retail push this, and where does it exhaust?" - that question alone is worth more than any indicator you run catch: not one input above is proprietary - futures prices are free, exchange data is public, and the academic papers on retail order flow sat on government websites since 2003 they read it, built on top of it, and you were never told where to look every time you log in at 9:29 feeling sharp, that session started 5 hours ago without you read what 4am actually looks like ↓

Livsun

13,323 次观看 • 1 个月前

a physics dropout from ohio has a $2.4m trading account he never read a trading book. never learned technical analysis. just took equations from his thermodynamics textbook and pointed them at price data to see if they fit they did markets under stress behave almost identically to thermodynamic systems. energy dissipates in predictable patterns after compression. price does the exact same thing the concept is entropy. shannon formalized it in 1948. it's in every stats and physics textbook that's ever been printed his actual setup: measure entropy across the last 40 candles flag low-entropy compression states build a transition table from 3 years of real data what the table showed: 68% of low-entropy compression states resolve into directional expansion above 2 ATR within 5 candles that's not a prediction. it's a probability table the market keeps filling in for you, every single day, for free he sizes each trade with kelly based on the 68%. takes it when math says yes, skips it when math says no traders in his server spent 3 years learning to read candles better he spent 6 months just asking a question they never thought to ask the textbook was $40. the data is free. the math has existed since 1948 bookmark this nobody told you about it because the second you start asking better questions, you stop being the other side of their trade
0:30

a physics dropout from ohio has a $2.4m trading account he never read a trading book. never learned technical analysis. just took equations from his thermodynamics textbook and pointed them at price data to see if they fit they did markets under stress behave almost identically to thermodynamic systems. energy dissipates in predictable patterns after compression. price does the exact same thing the concept is entropy. shannon formalized it in 1948. it's in every stats and physics textbook that's ever been printed his actual setup: measure entropy across the last 40 candles flag low-entropy compression states build a transition table from 3 years of real data what the table showed: 68% of low-entropy compression states resolve into directional expansion above 2 ATR within 5 candles that's not a prediction. it's a probability table the market keeps filling in for you, every single day, for free he sizes each trade with kelly based on the 68%. takes it when math says yes, skips it when math says no traders in his server spent 3 years learning to read candles better he spent 6 months just asking a question they never thought to ask the textbook was $40. the data is free. the math has existed since 1948 bookmark this nobody told you about it because the second you start asking better questions, you stop being the other side of their trade

Livsun

31,722 次观看 • 1 个月前

ChatGPT told your trading strategy was profitable. You went live. Two weeks later your account was bleeding out. That's not his fault. It handed you a guess and called it an edge. You're missing the one skill that separates quants from the retail they feed on: loop engineering. Horizon is the first tool that hands it to you - absolutely free: Here's the actual problem. ChatGPT can generate a thousand trading strategies in a minute. It cannot tell you which one actually works. 999 are noise. The one real edge is buried in there, and from the outside it looks exactly like the junk. So you trade the junk, lose, and call it a skill issue. Loop engineering does the opposite. It tests all thousand instead of trusting one - generate, score, kill, refine, repeat - and keeps only what survives data it never saw. That's the entire gap between you and a quant desk. Not brains. Not capital. The loop. It's why they print billions and 89% of retail funded them last year. Horizon runs that exact loop end to end: > a 5-year backtest in 12 seconds > thousands of simulated paths > out-of-sample gate before a dollar goes live The machine that cost a $25,000 terminal and a row of PhDs - now a sentence and a login. Save this - it's full framework below. Fewer than 1,300 seats left before launch locks the list. Link at the top - don't be the one who read all this and skip.
0:51

ChatGPT told your trading strategy was profitable. You went live. Two weeks later your account was bleeding out. That's not his fault. It handed you a guess and called it an edge. You're missing the one skill that separates quants from the retail they feed on: loop engineering. Horizon is the first tool that hands it to you - absolutely free: Here's the actual problem. ChatGPT can generate a thousand trading strategies in a minute. It cannot tell you which one actually works. 999 are noise. The one real edge is buried in there, and from the outside it looks exactly like the junk. So you trade the junk, lose, and call it a skill issue. Loop engineering does the opposite. It tests all thousand instead of trusting one - generate, score, kill, refine, repeat - and keeps only what survives data it never saw. That's the entire gap between you and a quant desk. Not brains. Not capital. The loop. It's why they print billions and 89% of retail funded them last year. Horizon runs that exact loop end to end: > a 5-year backtest in 12 seconds > thousands of simulated paths > out-of-sample gate before a dollar goes live The machine that cost a $25,000 terminal and a row of PhDs - now a sentence and a login. Save this - it's full framework below. Fewer than 1,300 seats left before launch locks the list. Link at the top - don't be the one who read all this and skip.

cvxv666

18,985 次观看 • 3 个月前

a prop trader showed me one number last year and it broke my entire framework H = 0.61 that single value told him the market was in trending mode before he placed a single trade not a chart pattern, not a moving average cross. one number from a rolling calculation most traders spend years asking "is this breakout real?" he already had the answer before the candle closed number is called the Hurst exponent. Harold Hurst invented it in the 1950s - british hydrologist, was studying nile river flood cycles, had nothing to do with finance quant funds found the paper in the 80s and built regime detection systems around it. never mentioned it to retail here's the framework: > H below 0.5: market is mean-reverting, every breakout is a trap, fades work > H above 0.5: momentum is real, pullbacks are entries, trends carry hard > H at exactly 0.5: pure random walk, no edge exists, sit on your hands most traders run a trend strategy on an H = 0.38 market for six months and assume their system is broken it's not broken. they never checked what mode the market was actually in he runs it on a rolling 60-day window, recalculates daily, 4 lines of python when H flips from 0.46 to 0.59 on SPY, he doesn't change the stock - he switches the entire approach to it Bookmark this math was published in 1951 in a hydrology journal. sits in every statistical physics textbook. price data to run it is free
0:30

a prop trader showed me one number last year and it broke my entire framework H = 0.61 that single value told him the market was in trending mode before he placed a single trade not a chart pattern, not a moving average cross. one number from a rolling calculation most traders spend years asking "is this breakout real?" he already had the answer before the candle closed number is called the Hurst exponent. Harold Hurst invented it in the 1950s - british hydrologist, was studying nile river flood cycles, had nothing to do with finance quant funds found the paper in the 80s and built regime detection systems around it. never mentioned it to retail here's the framework: > H below 0.5: market is mean-reverting, every breakout is a trap, fades work > H above 0.5: momentum is real, pullbacks are entries, trends carry hard > H at exactly 0.5: pure random walk, no edge exists, sit on your hands most traders run a trend strategy on an H = 0.38 market for six months and assume their system is broken it's not broken. they never checked what mode the market was actually in he runs it on a rolling 60-day window, recalculates daily, 4 lines of python when H flips from 0.46 to 0.59 on SPY, he doesn't change the stock - he switches the entire approach to it Bookmark this math was published in 1951 in a hydrology journal. sits in every statistical physics textbook. price data to run it is free

Livsun

61,938 次观看 • 1 个月前