|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Mark,
I understand that and apologize if I hurried you. I'll stand by
while you describe the ins & outs of what they mean.
At this juncture I think it best that all UNDERSTAND what each of the
components mean as opposed to trying to ALTER what they mean.
For example I think it is enough to understand that #1 states that a
system should be viable on large/mid/small caps stocks as opposed to
how big was a mid cap stock 5, 10, 20 years ago and whether or not it
was on some list. It's not that I argue with the logic but at this
juncture I don't think any of us need more than understand what you
have in mind as opposed to the fine points of how to implement them.
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "quanttrader714"
<quanttrader714@xxxx> wrote:
> If there's sufficient interest, as time permits. I'm kinda caught
> between a rock and a hard place on this... people want these *now*,
> but I need to make them suitable for public consumption. I've run
> these tests a zillion times and know them and their nuances, but
> trying to put them into non-technical but usable sound bites is
> another story. I'm also looking for illustrative examples, so stay
tuned.
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "leonardot19"
<leo.timmermans@xxxx>
> wrote:
> > Hi Anthony, Mark,
> >
> > This is a good idea. This will allow for the less gifted, like
myself
> > (lol) to follow more closely.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Leo
> >
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Anthony Faragasso"
<ajf1111@xxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > Mark,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the thread....How about exploring each of your 9
points
> > of
> > > Robustness with a sample simple System....then (you / we ) can
> > apply each
> > > point to this sample system....with your direction....and
discuss
> > why this
> > > system would be accepted or not as pertains to the specific
point...
> > >
> > > Anthony
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "quanttrader714" <quanttrader714@xxxx>
> > > To: <amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 11:13 AM
> > > Subject: [amibroker] Re: On Robustness, Post #1
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Dale,
> > > >
> > > > Good question. When someone posts something and I want to
check
> > it
> > > > out (I actually run at least the lite version on almost
everything
> > > > posted here), I initially use their numbers. If I want to
explore
> > > > further I optimize (lol) the system on a different database,
plot
> > the
> > > > optimized parameters against performance measures and choose
a set
> > > > of values that seems robust by eyeballing the graphs. When I
> > > > wrote: "Test *unoptimized* system on small, mid & large cap
> > stocks in
> > > > bull, bear & sideways market conditions, same parameters for
all"
> > I
> > > > was really trying to say, don't make a special case for each
mkt
> > cap
> > > > and mkt condition subtest by optimizing, use the same
parameters
> > for
> > > > all subtests.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "dingo" <dingo@xxxx> wrote:
> > > > > Thanks for the post MF2!
> > > > >
> > > > > Given Steve's example of the CMO5 which I assume is coded
to
> > detect
> > > > the
> > > > > cross of the indicator thru a value, how would you
determine
> > that
> > > > value
> > > > > for your intial testing? This is the case below where you
> > say "Test
> > > > > *unoptimized* system on small, mid & large cap stocks in
bull,
> > bear
> > > > &
> > > > > sideways market conditions, same parameters for all"
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > d
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: MarkF2 [mailto:feierstein@x...]
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 2:50 PM
> > > > > To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: [amibroker] On Robustness, Post #1
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is in response to DT's and others' requests to provide
more
> > > > > details on my 9 robustness criteria.
> > > > >
> > > > > First some administrative anouncements, lol. I've decided
to
> > > > provide
> > > > > them one-by-one, first due to my time constraints, second
> > because I
> > > > > feel that's the best way to discuss them and third because
I
> > want
> > > > to
> > > > > see how this goes. I welcome all constructive debate,
> > especially
> > > > > opposing views supported by quantitative analysis. But if
this
> > > > > degenerates into a flame war, I've got better things to do
with
> > my
> > > > > time. Treat me with respect and I'll treat you with
respect.
> > > > There
> > > > > seems to be a lot of interest in this topic, so let's
please
> > have a
> > > > > collegial and productive discussion. This is post 1 of 9
(not
> > > > > counting the dialog inbetween, let's see how far we can
get :-).
> > > > >
> > > > > Why care about robustness? For whatever reasons, markets
> > change.
> > > > We
> > > > > could spin our wheels forever discussing time series
theory,
> > serial
> > > > > dependencies, random walk, nonstationarity, etc., like
> > academicians
> > > > > do and get nowhere (as they do), or we can try to cut
through
> > the
> > > > crap
> > > > > and deal with it (the simple fact that markets constantly
> > change).
> > > > > My weapon of choice is robustness. You could say I have a
> > > > robustness
> > > > > obsession and my criteria are overkill. But that's my
choice
> > and
> > > > > you're free to make your own on how far you want to take
this,
> > if
> > > > at
> > > > > all.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, I lied. There will be some, very light discussion of
> > > > statistics
> > > > > because some criteria are steeped in statistical theory.
But
> > most
> > > > > can be reduced to simple, mechanical procedures that can be
> > graphed
> > > > in
> > > > > a spreadsheet and visually and intuitively interpreted.
Others
> > > > > require simulation software and one requires proprietary
> > software
> > > > but
> > > > > we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Speaking of proprietary, there are some things I simply
won't
> > > > > disclose, such as specific parameters for certain
criteria. So
> > > > please
> > > > > respect my wishes and don't ask. I have my reasons. So
> > evaluate
> > > > this
> > > > > on your own and decide for yourself what place, if any, the
> > criteria
> > > > > have in your trading. They work great for me but I make no
> > claim
> > > > that
> > > > > they're the Holy Grail of robustness and am sure that some
of
> > you
> > > > will
> > > > > come up with better ideas if there's enough interest and
> > > > discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > With that long winded intro, here's Criterion #1:
> > > > >
> > > > > Test *unoptimized* system on small, mid & large cap stocks
in
> > bull,
> > > > > bear & sideways market conditions, same parameters for
all. I
> > use
> > > > > the stocks of the S&P 600, 400, and 500 indices and 2 year
bull,
> > > > bear
> > > > > and sideways periods (for a total of 6 years per stock).
> > Rationale
> > > > > behind this: to find systems that profitably *tested out in
the
> > > > past*
> > > > > on a large number of (somewhat tradeable) stocks of varying
> > market
> > > > > caps in multiple sectors under different market conditions,
> > under
> > > > the
> > > > > assumption that this indicates the system is robust enough
to
> > > > > profitably *trade select issues in the future*. More on
robust
> > > > issue
> > > > > selection in later criteria. Looking for net profitability
on
> > all
> > > > mkt
> > > > > cap and mkt condition subtests, and profitable on the
majority
> > (>
> > > > > 50%) of issues in each subtest, the more the better.
Sometimes
> > I
> > > > cut
> > > > > a system some slack if it's close on one or two subtests,
it's a
> > > > > judgement call. My commission setting(s) in AB:
proprietary,
> > based
> > > > > on my *slippage* research using data from actual trades.
But
> > you
> > > > > could choose an arbitrary say, 1% to get started. Date
> > settings for
> > > > > my 2 year intervals: proprietary but you can easily find
your
> > own
> > > > by
> > > > > eyeballing a chart of a major index. Just use the same
ones
> > each
> > > > > time so you compare apples to apples. My lite version of
this
> > is 2
> > > > > year bull and bear periods on the ND100 and SP100 stocks,
which
> > I
> > > > > sometimes run as a quick pre-screen. Next time someone
posts a
> > > > system,
> > > > > run it through the lite or full version. Or test the
systems
> > in the
> > > > > AFL library. The more systems you run through, the more
> > intuitive
> > > > of
> > > > > a feel for robustness you'll get. Note that I'm *not*
saying
> > you
> > > > > shouldn't or can't successfully trade something that
doesn't
> > meet
> > > > > this standard, lol. That's obviously not true! I was
asked to
> > > > > explain my robustness criteria and that's what I'm doing.
> > Period.
> > > > > This criterion is a post-Amibroker creation, BTW. Pre-
> > Amibroker I
> > > > had
> > > > > a small test portfolio of diverse issues I used instead and
it
> > did a
> > > > > decent job. I run this now because I now (easily) can,
*many*
> > thanks
> > > > > to Tomasz. If you're thinking, geez, why bother with this,
ask
> > > > > yourself a simple question. *All else being equal*, would
you
> > feel
> > > > > more confident trading (with your money) a system that
passes
> > this
> > > > > test or one that fails it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > > >
> > > > > ADVERTISEMENT
> > > > >
> > > > > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=267637.4116730.5333196.12
> > > > 61774/D=egroupweb/S=1705
> > > > > 632198:HM/A=1754452/R=0/SIG=11tn6fnpm/*http://ww
> > > > w.netflix.com/Default?mq
> > > > > so=60178324&partid=4116730> click here
> > > > >
> > > > > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=267637.4116730
> > > > .5333196.1261774/D=egrou
> > > > > pmail/S=:HM/A=1754452/rand=847508790>
> > > > >
> > > > > Send BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxx
> > > > > Send SUGGESTIONS to suggest@xxxx
> > > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > > 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
> > > > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Send BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxx
> > > > Send SUGGESTIONS to suggest@xxxx
> > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > 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
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.535 / Virus Database: 330 - Release Date: 11/1/2003
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/GHeqlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|