A common belief that systems "Should" perform in all market conditions.
As strange as that maybe.
Bit like expecting to catch all fish types on only one bait.
Systems can/should be designed for different Conditions/Markets/Timeframes/Personal Requirements/Investment Capital to name a few.
To expect or even attempt to have a "One size fits all" system is inefficient.
I view this very simply.
Markets will only ever either trend or counter-trend with the differences only in their magnitude and volatility.
A truly adaptive system can be developed to trade and profit from all different markets as long as the logic behind the adaptive rules are statisically sound.
I would also certainly agree that "one size fit all" system is inefficient, but most people view their system as "non-adaptive" and require individual optimisation all the time to fit for different conditions/markets/time frame, etc.
While I am still developing a system like this, I know someone (not personally) that is actually doing exactly what I wanted to do. Very impressive results so far as well, over 600% compounded return in 20 months period with fairly consistence results. His methodology is extremely sound as well.
So yes, I believe it is possible to develop a system (which can comprises of many adaptive elements and even mini-systems) to trade all markets in ALL conditions and is statisically proven.
Of course, this is my belief only and can obviously change with time.![]()
temjin,
thanks for the pdf.
in my opinion: you can be very brainy on the subject of futures, but when you hand over your money to these people, you`ll just have to kneel and pray.
ofcourse they will not reveal exactly how they trade so you have no way of testing their strategy for yourself.
furthermore they`re changing it all the time.
you just have to hope that they will think of EVERY eventuality.![]()
Nice to hear from you. Your are right, I forgot the arbitrage. I tried some arbitrage trades at soy beans futures. It rans smoothly.professional traders use arbitrage systems, that is exploiting the differences between two correlated instruments, arbitrage methods don't rely on market direction or volatility as your always taking a long and short position at the same time so your betting on the relationship of 2 instruments which is more predictable than the outright direction of the market, most of these strategies actually thrive in uncertain environments like the current one, lots of inefficiencies, the simplest form of arbitrage is pair trading stocks.
professional traders use arbitrage systems, that is exploiting the differences between two correlated instruments, arbitrage methods don't rely on market direction or volatility as your always taking a long and short position at the same time so your betting on the relationship of 2 instruments which is more predictable than the outright direction of the market, most of these strategies actually thrive in uncertain environments like the current one, lots of inefficiencies, the simplest form of arbitrage is pair trading stocks.
I'm sorry but I don't agree. What you are doing is not arbitrage at all. You are simply betting on a assumed relationship between two instruments.
You're right that the overall position is less sensitive to the market, ie. low beta, but you can also achieve this just by balancing open long and short positions.
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.