[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [amibroker] Robustivity



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links




<SPAN 
class=496400216-31102003>steve, thanks for your response.
<SPAN 
class=496400216-31102003> 
<SPAN 
class=496400216-31102003>from your msg subject and the way you presented this 
system, I thought you were offering it as an example of one you 
had objectively evaluated and determined to be robust. I was 
interested in how you thought "robustivity" should be evaluated, since you 
seemed to be contrasting your approach to walkforward optimization and the 
various other system measures people were talking about.
<SPAN 
class=496400216-31102003> 
<SPAN 
class=496400216-31102003>what I'm hearing in your response below isn't what I 
would describe as a specific method for distinguishing accidentally gorgeous 
backtest results from robustness. you do mention testing also at faster time 
frames, which isn't a technique that's been mentioned recently. but mostly, the 
robustness label here seems to come from your integration of various aspects of 
your long experience with it, like your visual sense of how it behaves. am I 
missing something?
<SPAN 
class=496400216-31102003> 
<SPAN 
class=496400216-31102003>another question: you mention issue selection, the idea 
of looking for stocks you think will trade well with a particular indicator, 
rather than the other way around. how do you do that? by measuring raw past 
growth trading that indicator? other measures?
<SPAN 
class=496400216-31102003> 
<SPAN 
class=496400216-31102003>thanks again,
<SPAN 
class=496400216-31102003> 
<SPAN 
class=496400216-31102003>dave
<BLOCKQUOTE 
>
  <FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff 
  size=2>just for my understanding, in what sense is this system "robust"? 
  
  <FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff 
  size=2> 
  Well, first, this 
  was presented to the public in the late 90's, at a series of seminars that I 
  conducted for Equis.  Same indicator, same triggers, same 
  everything.  This robust "thing" is a tough one to define.  I'll try 
  to explain what's important to me, but, it's very subjective and just one 
  person's opinion.  
  <FONT face=Arial 
  size=2> 
  <FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff 
  size=2>is it because results are similar with 
  different similar periods and thresholds?
  <FONT face=Arial 
  size=2> 
  If you take this 
  CMO5 indicator and step down in time (5, 10, 60 minutes), you need to 
  widen the triggers to obtain decent results.  Other than that, 
  it trades through time-zones with very good results.
  <FONT face=Arial 
  size=2> 
  <FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff 
  size=2>that seems unlikely, since there isn't very far to go from 5 to hit 1 
  and 0, which I'd guess are significantly different. what sort of testing led 
  you to decide on this period and threshold, and this system for that 
  matter?
  <FONT face=Arial 
  size=2> 
  If you're 
  referring to the CMO5...I first started testing it six years ago.  I've 
  tested and eyeballed every version of CMO(x).  I've created a few 
  indicators that combines different periods of the CMO.  For my money, for 
  my style, this judge of momentum trades more things, more accurately than any 
  other indicator I am aware of.  As I have begged many times:  give 
  me something better...I'll use it instead of this.
  <FONT face=Arial 
  size=2> 
  <FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff 
  size=2>is it robust because it works well on 
  many stocks, indexes and funds over a long period of time? 
  
  <FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff 
  size=2> 
  Yes, it works well 
  on many stocks and indexes.  I don't trade funds, but, some fund 
  managers, DTG members, use versions of the CMO to aid their timing.  
  
  <FONT face=Arial 
  size=2> 
  <FONT 
  face="Courier New" color=#0000ff size=2>because of the concepts behind the 
  indicator itself?
  <FONT 
  face="Courier New" color=#0000ff size=2> 
  <FONT 
  face=Arial size=2>I process visually.  The math is beyond me.  My 
  bottom line has always been the same:  give me an indicator that is 
  smooth, yet sensitive to intermediate and major market turns.  After 
  gawking hundreds of charts, everyday, for the last six years, I'm amazed at 
  how this indicator quantifies momentum.  I like versions of the 
  Stochastic RSI and the Standard Error Oscillator, but dollar for dollar, the 
  CMO does it for me.
  <FONT 
  face=Arial size=2> 
  <FONT 
  face="Courier New" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
  class=468263723-30102003>something else?
  <FONT 
  face="Courier New" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
  class=468263723-30102003> 
  <FONT 
  face=Arial size=2>I think there's a few other 
  things to mention.  First of all, the ETF's that I showed were chosen 
  because they represent a broad range of stocks and are popular trading 
  instruments.  Do I suggest trading these issues with this 
  system?  No way.  The CMO5 trades a lot of other issues with better 
  results than the ETF's.  I always allow the issues "to pick 
  themselves".  Trade the issues that return the greatest percentages in a 
  stable system.  
  <FONT 
  face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
  class=468263723-30102003> 
  <FONT 
  face=Arial size=2>In it's stripped down 
  version, as presented, the CMO5 is an indicator that can return steady profits 
  (see equity lines) in it's rawest unoptimized form.  Is that 
  robust?  
  <FONT 
  face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
  class=468263723-30102003> 
  <FONT 
  face=Arial size=2>Robustness and 
  optimizing/over-optimizing are fascinating and misunderstood subjects.  
  Over the years, I've constantly simplified my approaches.  I can improve 
  on the results of the three ETF's by simply "tweaking" the trigger 
  levels.  But, will it walk forward better than the default triggers of 
  34/-34?  At least what I presented was out of sample.  
  
  <FONT 
  face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
  class=468263723-30102003> 
  <FONT 
  face=Arial size=2>If an approach does a good 
  job of identifying movement of supply and demand, the approach should not 
  be expected to work on all issues.  To say a system needs to 
  work on all  issues is total crap.   To say that a 
  system sucks because it doesn't work on XYZ is another large pile.  Build 
  simple things and concentrate on issue 
  selection.
  <FONT 
  face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
  class=468263723-30102003> 
  Optimization leads 
  to dark and spooky places.  Ranking leads you down the yellow brick 
  road.
  <FONT face=Arial 
  size=2> 
  Take 
  care,
  <FONT face=Arial 
  size=2> 
  <FONT face=Arial 
  size=2>Steve
  <FONT face=Arial 
  size=2> 
  <BLOCKQUOTE 
  >
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003>steve, thanks for sharing this 
    (again).
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003> 
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003> 
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003>just for my understanding, in what sense is this 
    system "robust"? 
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003> 
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003>is it because results are similar with different 
    similar periods and thresholds? that seems unlikely, since there isn't very 
    far to go from 5 to hit 1 and 0, which I'd guess are significantly 
    different. what sort of testing led you to decide on this period and 
    threshold, and this system for that matter?
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003> 
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003>is it robust because it works well on many stocks, 
    indexes and funds over a long period of time? 
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003> 
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003>because of the concepts behind the indicator 
    itself?
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003> 
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003>something else?
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003> 
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003> 
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003>I'm not disputing the system's value, which I 
    haven't tested yet. I'm trying to understand what kind of process you go 
    through to settle on a system and settings.
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003> 
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003>thanks,
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003> 
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003>dave
    <SPAN 
    class=468263723-30102003> 
    <BLOCKQUOTE 
    >
      1.  This exact system was presented over 
      a year ago at this forum
      2.  The charts are OOS (since, it's been 
      posted publicly forever)
      3.  Rules are simple:  Buy the 
      opening of the next day when the CMO5 closes below -34 and sell when it 
      triggers above 34.
       
      Works on most issues (raw).  Works 
      better if:  
       
      a.  You take trades only with the 
      trend
      b.  You protect yourself from large 
      drawdowns (stop)
      c.  You conjure a profit target 
      (limit)
      d.  You put in a time stop 
      
       
      This is the guts of an indicator and a 
      logical systematic approach.  Whistles and bells are optional (but, 
      in my opinion necessary).  Again, if you start with a pig, the prom 
      dress doesn't make it look any better.  Don't hang ornaments on a 
      twisted Christmas 
tree.






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor












Send BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send SUGGESTIONS to suggest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------
Post AmiQuote-related messages ONLY to: amiquote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
(Web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amiquote/messages/)
--------------------------------------------
Check group FAQ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.