tech/a
Duc.
Why is it necessary for a method designed to trade long/long trends be expected to perform as well in a bear market as a bull market?Why is it that people like yourself seem to require a method designed to do only one thing---need to be "robust" in that it should trade ALL markets at ALL times?
A methodology that can return positive numbers in all and any conditions fulfills my criteria for wealth creation. Wealth creation is where I am coming from.
I dont agree my numbers have been meaningful for 4 yrs others who started 2 yrs ago have had them for 2 yrs and those that start today will have them meaningful "In their" method for X period.
If a methodology can only produce in a specific environment, you are immediately limited to finding those conditions, and accurately recognising them early enough to monetize a significant portion thereof.
The inflection points are where even the top guys struggle.
It is at the inflection points that instigating an entry of a
methodological system that relies on specific market conditions is fraught with peril.
From what youve written due to data problems both Technical and Fundamental your basically saying that its not possible to trade a plan giving meaningful numbers.
Not at all.
As you well know I have recommended TT to people.
Although I jibe you about bear markets, I actually think that it may work in a bear market, not quite as well, but you should get through.
My issue with the numbers, are several. They are essentially promulgated as statistically significant. Plainly this is nonsense.
Whats the big deal about statistical significance?
Statistical significance
is about probabilities, and is about a predivtive future result, within the defined test results.
The results generated by the software, would seem
not to be dealing in probabilities (as defined statistically) but dealing within a DETERMINISTIC context this is a completely different paradigm.
It is negligent to suggest otherwise. Those new to trading, (and here I will generalise a little) are looking for the fast buck, are lazy, misinformed, and eager to snap-up anything that vaguely suggests easy money for no work.
Pumping in computer (market data) pushing a button and having the answer spew back out has great appeal. I did say I was generalising, but for every tech/a & stevo, you will get ten who fit my description.
mit
I think that Duc is inventing problems that aren't significant. True there are dividends and mergers and takeovers but still all of the systems I have run over the years have been pretty true to the original backtesting for expectancy.
To a certain extent it will depend on the market that you choose.
If the ASX, then there has been no significant bear market, and this will introduce a serious bias to any results.
As for the limited period of data. I agree that this is an issue. There has been no real bear market for the last couple of decades. However, I got daily Dow data back to the 1930s and had a look at what we can expect. It is true that a bear market can move down a significant percentage but what I found is that the actual down movement is relatively quick. From a couple of months in 1987 to at most a couple of years. Most seem to be less than 12 months. After this the market moves sideways. However, there is enough movement up and down that a short term swing trader could make money. Certainly any person who made money 2000-2003 would make money in the sideway bits.
Your data, what exactly does it consist of?
Please don't say a chart.
In the US, there have been the following secular bear markets
1901-1920
1929-1932
1937-1941
1966-1981
2000-current?
Part of the problem with Bear markets is the gross increase in volatility.
In Bull markets, volatility reduces, thus, trend following has greater success.
In a Bear, the increased volatility punishes stoploss based methodologies due to the whipsaw of volatility.
Unless your *testing* has survived high, protracted periods of volatility, then you are in for possibly a very rude awakening when a Bear market turns up.
jog on
d998