|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Roy's newsletter has methods for figuring out the type of market
you're in.
The rotation issue is one of no conviction. Stocks are pulling back
and leadership is changing. However, the new leadership only lasts a
day or two. This is the hardest kind of market there is to trade in.
The market has done that a couple of times.
Moving averages are good for figuring out market trends. Like I said
Roy's newsletter details more sophisticated and accurate methods of
defining the bias.
When you run your systems test, are you putting a 0 in the money
market rate of return. The money market box can really screw up a
systems test.
You need to test your system under all four conditions. Read the post
I did on using explorations to see how a system is going to work when
faced with certain market issues. You'll see big changes in all
aspects of your system statistics as the market bias switches.
--- In Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Scooter" <mariani@xxxx> wrote:
> John,
> So do I run different explorations on the S&P, NASDQ, and DOW indices to
> identify these different periods in the overall market? I think I
can use
> MA's for Up and Down Trends but I will have to do some research on
> developing an Exploration for price consolidation/small pull back
and price
> consolidation/pull back with rotation.?
> Thanks, Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 9:41 AM
> To: Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Metastockusers] System Tester Results Comparison with
Explorer
>
>
>
> Scott, If you are going to confine your trading to a specific
> universe, say the 217 symbols, then it is reasonable to run the
> exploration tests on only those symbols.
>
> You don't need to optimize again for about a year. However, the most
> important aspect of making money is knowing how the system performs
> under the different market conditions.
>
> Many systems test very well because they perform good in up trends.
> When you remove the up trend the system is a disaster.
>
> You should pick historical periods for the explorations where the
> overall market was in an up trend, down trend, price
> consolidation/small pull back and price consolidation/pull back with
> rotation. The latter is the most difficult to trade.
>
> Most of the time those historical periods should last at least a month
> for them to be long enough to influence the performance of your
> system. Run explorations on 10 days out of the period and see how many
> stocks the system finds each day on average, define your trading
> rules, open the charts, apply your trading rules and see how many of
> the candidates you would actually have bought. (If you want to see how
> it works mechanicall, buy them all.)
>
> Check the buys and figure out how many made money and how much money
> they made. It's very difficult for someone to look at chart history
> and not pick and choose trading rules that match the performance of
> the stock. You should write down the trading rules and force yourself
> to apply them exactly.
>
> If you keep good history, you should see all of your statistics
> change, often dramatically, in the different market conditions. You
> may find that you only want to trade your system in up trends. Okay,
> no problem. Learn to define an up trend and trade away.
>
> There is no such thing as a system that works in all market
> conditions. There are no specific trading rules that work in all
> market conditions. There is no one psychological set of circumstances
> that exist in all market conditions. The systems tester won't define
> how your system and you react to these things.
>
> The MS systems tester is really poor at calculating drawdowns. Most
> people would be shocked to learn how many losers in a row their
> winning system is going to encounter. In addition, most systems,
> especially those written by inexperienced people, find far too many
> trades for one human being with a reasonable capital account to take.
> So how many do you take, and how much does your picking and chosing
> impact the systems test results? If you don't take all the trades the
> tester recommends, then you aren't going to achieve the results the
> system tester did.
>
> The average trader can not make 2500 trades a year. They don't
> multiply the average trades per symbol by the number of symbols
> they've tested to see how many trades they would have to make a year
> to trade on a mechanical basis. On an EOD basis, a trader has to make
> 10 trades per day every day to hit 2500 a year. Ain't going to happen.
>
> There are all kinds of other issues, too many to discuss in a post.
> Most system tester results aren't worth the paper they're written on
> because they have nothing to do with real life. Very few people can
> trade a mechnaical system totally mechanically. The drawdowns are too
> large, the trades can't be executed automatically without human
> involvement and the normal trading account would be churned too much.
>
> Individuals are poor choices for mechanical trading. Hedge funds and
> other money managers are good choices for mechanical trading. How many
> individuals could watch 50% or more of their trading account vanish
> and keep believing in the system and keep trading it?
>
> It takes a number of years of experience to put together a system that
> has good numbers and is also rational from the perspective of being
> able to trade it in live trading. The vast majority of traders would
> have made more money using the buy and hold techniques defined in The
> Four Pillars of Investing than they would have from trading some
> system they created in a system tester or got from a guru.
>
> I'm not even sure a systems tester should come with a program like MS.
> I often think you shouldn't be able to buy the tester module until you
> have 3 or more years of trading experience, and then I might have a
> trader demonstrate they can make at least 5 successful trades using a
> moving average--sort of like a driver's license test.
>
> Have fun with the explorer!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Scooter" <mariani@xxxx> wrote:
> > Super,
> > I re-ran the system test on 10 years of data again (Thanks again
> Dusant). I
> > ran them from Jan 1 to Dec 31 of each year. Out of the 800+ symbols
> I have
> > in my group I narrowed the list to 467 that had history back to
1995. I
> > uploaded the spreadsheet up to the files area.
> >
> > In the 1995-2004 Worksheet you will find my summary. On the far
right I
> > calculated the winning percentages for each symbol. In the bottom
> right cell
> > I calculate the number of symbols that had a 80% or better hit rate.
> I came
> > up with 218 securities. I will re-run my criteria on those 218
only and
> > report my results.
> >
> > Do you think it is reasonable to run the explorer only on the
218 best
> > candidates? I would guess that I would re-run this exercise every
> quarter or
> > so to keep the symbols fresh.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of superfragalist
> > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 1:34 AM
> > To: Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [Metastockusers] System Tester Results Comparison with
Scott's
> > system
> >
> >
> >
> > Since we're having fun with numbers, I ran a comparison of
part of a
> > system I saw that Roy is publishing in his newsletter next month
> > against the system results Scott published for us. Scott's results
> > look good.
> >
> > I used Scott's criteria, $20,000 in equity, 100% in. All
trades are on
> > the open after the signal so that's a one bar delay. (Scott didn't
> > tell me what he was doing with the entry/exit.) Roy's is a
long only
> > system. I don't know if Scott's is long only or both long and
short. I
> > ran Roy's on the S&P 500 and did not eliminate losing stocks.
Oh, I
> > almost forgot. I didn't optimize it. Scott's is optimized.
> >
> > Scott's dates are 4/13/xxxx to 4/13/xxxy Normally I won't
test across
> > skewed dates, but I wanted good comparisons so I used Scott's
dates.
> >
> > Roy's Scott's
> >
> > 2004/5 $500.965 $139,048
> > 2003/4 $613,302 $234,187
> > 2002/3 $17,897 $106,714
> > 2001/2 $198,010 $158,116
> > 2000/1 $75,173 $(-29,693)
> > 1999/0 $219,871 $290,114
> >
> > If you guys are interested in seeing how this works, get a copy of
> > Roy's next newsletter. The code for this part of the system
will be in
> > there. Since Roy is having other trader's write articles,
maybe Scott
> > would be willing to share his system in Roy's newsletter also.
I would
> > read about it, and play with it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > --
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Metastockusers/
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Metastockusers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Metastockusers/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Metastockusers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EpW3eD/3MnJAA/cosFAA/zMEolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Metastockusers/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Metastockusers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|