|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Glen,
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:34:40 -0700, you wrote:
>That sounds really interesting. I'd like to hear what you find.
Using some kind of genetic algorithm for system optimization, I do not
get a single "best" solution but a bunch of systems with different
parameter sets but (nearly) the same result in terms of the
optimization function. Testing these systems with the Optimal f method
via post-processing (like described in Futures Magazine) gives rather
different results for many of these systems.
My conclusion: f is *not* an independent parameter that can be
optimized separately. So f should be included into the list of
parameters for system optimization to take care of the inherent
dependencies.
>Be careful not to over-optimize, though. Your primary goal should not be to
>maximize profits themselves, but rather to maximize *consistency* of
>profitability from your system. From here, your money management system and
>time will maximize overall profit.
Over-optimization is a bad thing by definition, but
"under-optimization" is bad as well. Imo, all relevant system
parameters (including those for "money management") should be
optimized synchronously, if a parameter is not really independent from
all others.
Concerning your criterion "variance or standard deviation
of returns" for consistency of profitability: I personally would
prefer to concentrate on "consistency of losses" to avoid any
unnecessary restrictions for wins. And the
"probability-to-loose-more-than-xx%" (p2lmtxx5) may be a good
criterion.
Unfortunately, a reliable calculation of p2lmtxx% requires a valid
analytical approximation for the probability of losses, especially
when it comes to xx values of eg 50 ... 80 ... 90 ... %. So I'm still
interested to learn, what experienced people are using here ...
mfg rudolf stricker
| Disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
|