|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
"... I could post a variety of examples to refute your assumptions ...
But
as stated by someone else earlier ... THIS ISN'T THE FORUM FOR IT ...
Take it up in AB-TS ... This forum is supposed to be about AB ..."
Fred, I'm regretting my "aiding and abetting" of this topic here, and
related ones, too. This forum is where I come to for help with AB
coding and software solutions and I think the overwhelming majority of
other members do, too. It just isn't the place for extended
discussions like this one, and as for myself I'm going to make a serious
effort to stay more on-topic.
As an alternative for posters who have an interest in topics related to
mechanical systems and valid testing concepts, I've found this site to
be absolutely first-rate.
http://www.tradingblox.com/forum/
Luck,
Sebastian
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Fred" <ftonetti@xxx> wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> Your assumptions have moved for the outrageous ( your word ) to the
> absurd ( my word ) ... They are based only on a few loose things
> rolling around in your head that you think should be true. If you
> want to go the route you're on, fine, do it ... but to advise others
> to do the same is imho at best DANGEROUS ...
>
> I could post a variety of examples to refute your assumptions ... But
> as stated by someone else earlier ... THIS ISN'T THE FORUM FOR IT ...
> Take it up in AB-TS ... This forum is supposed to be about AB ...
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "brian.z123" brian.z123@ wrote:
> >
> > Fred,
> >
> >
> > I put forward the following proposition, not as a method, but
> rather
> > as an interesting discussion point.
> >
> > My proposition is that OOS testing after optimisation is not
> actually
> > OOS testing at all.
> >
> > Break some historical data into three equal segments and conduct
> > intitial testing/optimisation on the first segment.
> > This is not testing as such and the data used can be considered as
> > optimisation or design data.
> > After the optimisation the top model can be tested using segment
> two.
> > I claim that this is not OOS but actually the first test of the top
> > model.
> > No harm is done if the top model is disappointing in tests and the
> > second top model is tested on the second segment of data or even if
> we
> > go back and re-optimise on the first segment of data to obtain some
> > new top models.
> > The data doesn't know we have optimised on it.
> > It suddenly doesn't become data-non-gratus just because our
> computer
> > software has tip-toed over it once, twice or even a thousand times.
> >
> > Once an optimised model has been correctly tested in out of
> > optimisation data, it can be statistically evaluated and then
> traded
> > with confidence, providing it is part of a balanced freelance
> trading
> > portfolio.
> >
> > If the system is tested on the third set of data, that would
> > constitute an OOS test, but no one ever does that do they?
> >
> > Further to that, the equity curve obtained from the OOS test will
> > *always* be within the range predicted by the test profile of a
> > correctly analysed system, and yes, sometimes it might not look so
> > pretty.
> > The exception there is the occasional equity curve outlier, but
> hey,
> > nothings perfect.
> >
> > My second outlandish proposition is that the dangers of over-
> fitting
> > during optimisation are over-emphasised.
> > If the outcome of the trade system test is a dataset with an
> adequate
> > number of samples then it will be a true test and definitely will
> not
> > be a result of over-fitting.
> > The corrollary of that is that if a system has that many rules that
> > after back-testing 10 X 250 daily bars for 2000 symbols (5million
> > datapoints) it only produces 5 signals it is obvious that something
> is
> > wrong.
> >
> > Genuinely significant events that occur rarely require massive
> amounts
> > of data to produce a resonable number of signals, so the data
> becomes
> > suspect anyway and as well as that it is no fun to trade a system
> when
> > you have to wait for a leap year to get in.
> >
> > Most of the time over-fitting simply receives the blame for
> incorrect
> > testing and evaluation.
> >
> > BrianB2.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Fred" <ftonetti@> wrote:
> > >
> > > OOS and/or WF Testing is not a concept invented in or for IO so
> that
> > > particular piece of software is not really the issue per se
> except
> > that
> > > IO has facilitated making it considerably easier to perform.
> > >
> > > "If one OOS test had a 50% drawdown it doesn't say that much
> about
> > the
> > > system. It only says something about that one single OOS test of
> > > however many samples."
> > >
> > > It doesn't ? ... It speaks volumes to me ... From my perspective,
> > > decent in sample performance, whether or not one applies MCS
> after
> > the
> > > fact, is not the end of system testing, it is only a milestone
> along
> > > the way to developing a system that MIGHT be tradable ...
> > >
> >
>
Content-Description: "AVG certification"
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.11/542 - Release Date: 11/20/2006
|