Arbaaz Shaikh and Berlin B sales representitives are blocking on whtsapp & ignoring calls and emails

AI & Machine learning
1

Arbaaz Shaikh and other sales representitives are ignoring calls and emails

Poor service very disrepectful ways to deal with costomers! 

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THIS SORT OF BEHAVIOUR

Ive been trying to find answers for a question I posed here for the last 2 months. The question is basd on a course they teach and in a very specific area. The programmers and engineers that responded made excuse after excuse, mistake upon mistakes.

And when they get tired of you asking you are blocked or ignored. 



Kindly rectify this.



 

2

Hi Jane,



We have always replied to all your queries. In case you have any follow-up queries, then please feel free to reply on that particular thread. 



Thanks,

Akshay

3

Im telling you the 2 named persons in the post blocked me on whatsapp. Please consult with the proper channels/superiors and correct this situation.

Also the thread is going on 2 months now and the qustion at hand is about a simple but fundamental concept that you seem to not yet completly understand.



Learn algorithmic trading from top institutions and experts | Quantra by QuantInsti

 

4

Even now!!! The member of stalf who commented last sent a link to what seems to be a new code attempting to demo the concept that is in question. And even that was terribly wrong! 

5

Hey Jane



That is not a wrong code. It works perfectly fine for a hedge ratio of 1 or less. I have shared an example with you. The context.quantity is set to 0.5 and not 1. I think that caused you confusion.



For a more dynamic code, I have shared corrections. You need to take the absolute of the hedge ratio, otherwise in pairs which are negatively correlated the code you have shared will not work. Also, there is no need for context.quantity in the code. 



Thanks

6

THE CODE WAS TERRIBLE AND ANYONE COULD OF SEEN THAT.



YOU CHANGED THE CODE AND YOU KNOW THIS.



DO NOT LIE NOW.



You had



order_target_percent(context.security_1, -context.quantity) 



And now you have 

    order_target_percent(context.security_1, -security_1_percentage)

YOU ARE A LIAR DO NOT LIE.







 

7

Hey Jane



In case you are not satisfied with the responses you can write to quantra@quantinsti.com.



I was copying the code to create a dynamic version and at that time you would have accessed the code. But to reiterate, the code which was initially shared works perfectly fine if the hedge ratio is less than or equal to 1. For example, if the hedge ratio is 0.5, the order target percent code will resolve to the following. 

order_target_percent(context.security_1, context.quantity) to
order_target_percent(context.security_1, 0.5)

order_target_percent(context.security_1, -model.params[0]*context.quantity) 
order_target_percent(context.security_2, -0.25)

This is perfectly valid order placement logic. As the proportion or ratio of shares between security 1 and security 2 is kept constant. With 0.5 and 0.25 or 1 and 0.5 the ratio is constant. If you expect the hedge ratio to be less than 2, you can change the context.quantity to 0.25 and so on.

If you want to set this dynamically then the correct version of the code to use would be here. You need to take the absolute value of the hedge ratio in the total.

While posting ensure that you maintain the community standards. Sample standards can be found here: community standards. If you consistently violate the standards then we would refrain from replying to your posts/queries.


Thanks
8

Im glad you changed your code. It was clearly wrong and if anyone could of seen the orginal now they would agree. 



THS IS WHY YOU CHANGED THE CODE.



This post wasnt about the previous post, this is about the poor service Im getting here. You have yet to reshedule a meeting I was supposed to have with the people Im talking to online about the same isue in question but it was canceled. 





Remove or Replace the CSRs (Arbaaz Shaikh and Berlin B ) Im in contact with and give me new ones. Your responces often take many weeks to garner a replay and this is not good.

9

Hi Jane,



Both the codes can be accessed from the below link (the original one and the newer one which corrected errors in your code).

  1. Code 1: For hedge ratio expected to be less than 1
  2. Code 2: For dynamic hedge ratio
Prerequisites to understand the logic in both the code is ratio and proportion.

Code 1

The explanation for the logic in code 1 can be found above. But intuitively, if the hedge ratio is 0.5, it will allocate 50% of the capital to asset 1, 25% to asset 2 and 25% is in the cash. This is the most simplified version of the implementation of a pairs trading strategy. You can change the context.quantity to 0.25 if you expect the hedge ratio between 1 and 2 and so on. You shouldn't change the value of context.quantity to some random values otherwise the code would not perform as per expectations.

Code 2

Code 2 which allocates all the available capital or cash in the proportion of the hedge ratio is the correction of one of the recent codes shared by you. It corrects the code on the following:
  1. Take the absolute value of the hedge ratio while calculating the total
  2. The code is simplified without using context.quantity
I hope this helps.

Thanks,
Ishan
 
10

"And the newer one which corrected errors in your code" 

IS A EGREGIOUS THING TO SAY.



I already understand that BASIC concept you are speaking about thats why and how I correct you.



My issue is finding out why the code in question is performing the way it did without logs.



But I see you are incredulous person.



That is not my problem and I made this post to talk about your service in general and my difficulites speaking with your cutomer service representitives who are blocking my messages and ignoring my calls and cancelled my meetings.