|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Mark,
In particular what you have in mind by "simulation" ...
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Fred" <fctonetti@xxxx> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Can you add a few more words behind #4 & 5 ?
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "quanttrader714"
> <quanttrader714@xxxx> wrote:
> > Robustness Criteria, Condensed 1-5.
> >
> > 1. Test on small, mid & large cap stocks in bull, bear & sideways
> > markets.
> > 2. Evaluate performance on top 20% most actively traded small,
mid &
> > large cap stocks.
> > 3. Graph and evaluate system performance consistency (%
profit/trade
> > and % profit/bar) on select stocks.
> > 4. Perform simulation to estimate probability of profit in 10
trades
> > (for select stocks).
> > 5. Perform simulation to estimate future drawdown (for select
> stocks).
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Fred" <fctonetti@xxxx> wrote:
> > > At the moment I'd settle for having a one line description of
#2 -
> > #8.
> > >
> > > --- 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: am
> > iquote@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 ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs from home.
Over 14,500 titles. Free Shipping
& No Late Fees. Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/I3w.vC/hP.FAA/3jkFAA/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/
|