Dump it Here

[Skate]

Trendomics, is this a break out short term system?

@bettamania - further to @Sir Burr's comments

@Trendnomics posted a fun and interesting take on a trading strategy to show you don't need anything fancy. The strategy uses a randomly generated number to determine buy and sell signals. It’s a playful way to illustrate how randomness can be applied to trading strategies reinforcing @Richard Dale (Monkey-throwing darts analogy).

# Simply follow his two rules to achieve outstanding results (his code is posted)

# Entry
If yesterday’s "randomly generated number" is less than or equal to 0.05, then BUY

# Exit
If yesterday’s "randomly generated number" is greater than or equal to 0.9, then SELL

It was a "tongue-in-cheek" post to add a bit of fun to the thread.

Skate.

 

[bettamania]

@Sir Burr your first line sentence "... in the name ..." It just reminds me of 1980 cartoon character He-Man . When that guy wants to bring his max power he always say this

@ Skate truly I don't know about this simian TS thing. but looking at the smoothness equity curve ; it just a typical character of short term and a small profit taking strategy

 

[Skate]

looking at the smoothness equity curve ; it just a typical character of short term and a small profit taking strategy

@Trendnomics post was meant as a joke, just a bit of fun.

Skate.

 

[Richard Dale]

It was a "tongue-in-cheek" post to add a bit of fun to the thread.

Nope.

@Trendnomics post was meant as a joke, just a bit of fun.

No - Skate I don't think you are getting it at all.

Your prior "proven strategies" are not stated. You have no statistical validation or backtest results. Apart from recent (3 month results, in a bull market no less), none of your so-called strategies can be tested or proven. You state a set of (recently selected top cap) stocks and backtesting back to 1992, yet most of these companies were not around then. This is quite simply survivorship bias.

You like to continually post with "platitudes." What are these? These are broad, fairly non-controversial statements that are used to appeal to a wide audience but lack specific meaning or actionable content. I had a look at your PANDA ebook - and it was full of this too.

@bettamania The "simian" method refers to Burton Malkiel's 1973 book, "A Random Walk Down Wall Street," where he stated, "A blindfolded monkey throwing darts at a newspaper's financial pages could select a portfolio that would do just as well as one carefully selected by experts." I purport that the strategies shown by Skate are variations on this theme. He is unable to provide any evidence to the contrary to date.

Come back when you have something concrete, well-tested, hand-picked selection bias-free, and survivorship-bias free. Otherwise, you are just a platitude provider.

Challenge provided - up to you to accept and respond with something verifiable.

 

[Skate]

If the system has been thoroughly tested and proven effective, it provides a no-cost opportunity for new traders to evaluate and begin experimenting with a structured approach.

@Richard Dale, I want to reiterate my commitment to providing the full details of the "Signal Generator", "Enhanced Signal Generator", and "10-Position Breakout" strategies once they have proven to be profitable through paper trading.

While this exercise may not have resonated, I remain committed to developing a system that others new to trading can evaluate and potentially adopt, without having to pay anything. Sharing the system and the system's actual trading results will be invaluable for those seeking a proven, transparent strategy to consider.

The signal generator has one simple job: "to produce clear, actionable trading signals". If this signal generator ultimately proves to be effective at consistently generating reliable, profitable trading signals, traders will be far more inclined to follow the system's guidance rather than relying solely on their own intuition or emotional decision-making.

@divs4ever, in the financial markets, where unpredictability reigns, only a handful with exceptional skill can foresee the rise and fall of values. Technical analysis can transform the unpredictable chaos into a strategic approach to decode complex patterns. System trading is one such discipline that has been proven to be effective. Of course, different approaches work for different people.

Today's series of posts emphasises the simplicity and effectiveness of systematic trading. Once a strategy has been carefully developed and proven to perform well across various market conditions, it instils confidence in following the generated signals. All the information presented today relied on Norgate data, Amibroker and Share Trade Tracker.

The trade signals for the period spanning from January 1st, 2024, to March 15th, 2024, are shown below. @peter2 may be particularly interested in these positions and the corresponding trade results, which demonstrate the effectiveness of system trading in generating profits. In my opinion, this approach has proven to be reliable and successful for me.

It was suggested that I conduct a more thorough analysis of the 10-Position Strategy, as the initial logic of the exercise seemed less than useful. Doing additional backtesting has proven me wrong, as the ongoing weekly results haven’t been too shabby so far.

I firmly believe that sharing the actual paper trading results will be invaluable for those seeking a proven strategy. The “Signal Generator” and the “10-Position Breakout Strategy” act as a bridge, helping new traders transition from theoretical knowledge to practical application, and hopefully to successful live trading.

However, as I mentioned, I want to ensure the strategies are proven profitable through paper trading before releasing the full specifications.

@Richard Dale, I’ve attached the quotes where I used the term “proven” along with the context. I apologise if this caused any confusion. My aim is to share ideas and post about them, hoping to spark interest in the ideas I’m presenting.

Your prior "proven strategies" are not stated.

@Richard Dale, I’m sorry if I gave you the impression that the ideas I’m posting about have been “proven.” That was not my intention and is simply not the case.

Skate.

 

[Skate]

You have no statistical validation or backtest results. Apart from recent (3 month results, in a bull market no less), none of your so-called strategies can be tested or proven. You state a set of (recently selected top cap) stocks and backtesting back to 1992, yet most of these companies were not around then. This is quite simply survivorship bias.

@Richard Dale, I have used TradingView’s “Strategy Tester” function for backtest validation.

TradingView’s “Strategy Tester”
The in-built TradingView’s “Strategy Tester” provides an overview of performance metrics, including net profit, profit percentage, total closed trades, profitable trade percentage, profit factor, maximum dollar drawdown, drawdown percentage, average trade, average trade percentage, and one of my favourite metrics, the average number of bars in a trade.

For the backtesting
I selected the longest period possible without considering survivorship bias. Initially, I aimed to post about a simple two-rule trading system with unique coloured dots.

My initial idea
My thinking at the time of developing the strategy was that if the systems demonstrated to be effective and profitable after extensive paper trading, they could provide a no-cost opportunity for new traders to evaluate and begin experimenting with a structured approach.

Skate.

 

[Richard Dale]

@Richard Dale, I have used TradingView’s “Strategy Tester” function for backtest validation.

TradingView’s “Strategy Tester”
The in-built TradingView’s “Strategy Tester” provides an overview of performance metrics, including net profit, profit percentage, total closed trades, profitable trade percentage, profit factor, maximum dollar drawdown, drawdown percentage, average trade, average trade percentage, and one of my favourite metrics, the average number of bars in a trade.

For the backtesting
I selected the longest period possible without considering survivorship bias. Initially, I aimed to post about a simple two-rule trading system with unique coloured dots.

Yet you continue to defend it and provide no metrics despite being asked repeatedly to do so.

Survivorship bias is very important - you don't even have any strategy for stock selection, other than your simian "throw darts at a list of (successful) stocks on a given day."

You state you've backtested back to 1992 - yet 5 out of the 10 stocks weren't even listed in 1992.

This is completely flawed and the strategy results are not indicative of anything meaningful.

You keep saying this is a proven tested trading system - it's really not.

But I guess you'll continue to post.

 

[Skate]

Yet you continue to defend it and provide no metrics despite being asked repeatedly to do so.

Survivorship bias is very important - you don't even have any strategy for stock selection, other than your simian "throw darts at a list of (successful) stocks on a given day."

You state you've backtested back to 1992 - yet 5 out of the 10 stocks weren't even listed in 1992.

This is completely flawed and the strategy results are not indicative of anything meaningful.

You keep saying this is a proven tested trading system - it's really not.

But I guess you'll continue to post.

@Richard Dale, we are all entitled to express our views based on our level of knowledge.

I have already explained that I selected the longest period possible without considering survivorship bias.

This beginner's thread is a platform for everyone to share their input and have their say, and when I post alternative ideas, they don’t always resonate with everyone.

Defending the ideas is of little concern; keeping you posting is.

Why? Because your posts hold tremendous educational value. Plus, I enjoy the banter, and it keeps the “Dump it thread” active.

Skate.

 

[dyna]

Burton Malkiel's 1973 book, "A Random Walk Down Wall Street,

Might be hard to find these days but well worth reading this great investment book .
Am enjoying this debate immensely . Keep up the good work , people.
This is a hard game . We've all got to be tough.
( If it was easy , nobody would be at work , nine to five ! )

 

[Richard Dale]

Malkiel's book is in its 13th edition now - readily available.

https://www.amazon.com.au/Random-Walk-Down-Wall-Street/dp/1324035439/ref

 

[DaveTrade]

Am enjoying this debate immensely . Keep up the good work , people.

The two debaters don't seem to be on the same page, @Richard Dale is taking about a fully developed, comprehensively tested and released trading system, and @Skate is just presenting an idea to newbies as a way forward into trading. The danger, in my opinion, is if a new trader thinks that it's easy to develop a system like this that works consistently in all market conditions, then they may get themselves into trouble.

 

[divs4ever]

The two debaters don't seem to be on the same page, @Richard Dale is taking about a fully developed, comprehensively tested and released trading system, and @Skate is just presenting an idea to newbies as a way forward into trading. The danger, in my opinion, is if a new trader thinks that it's easy to develop a system like this that works consistently in all market conditions, then they may get themselves into trouble.

ah , yes the hippopotamus in the room

to tweak or not to tweak as you are using your system , that takes a lot of experience ( and that experience can be expensive lessons )

trading can be very demanding if you are depending on that income

one might try trading as a hobby first ( and keep your day job) , until you are more confident

 

[Skate]

My initial idea
My thinking at the time of developing the strategy was that if the systems demonstrated to be effective and profitable after extensive paper trading, they could provide a no-cost opportunity for new traders to evaluate and begin experimenting with a structured approach.

@Skate is just presenting an idea to newbies as a way forward into trading.

The danger, in my opinion, is if a new trader thinks that it's easy to develop a system like this that works consistently in all market conditions, then they may get themselves into trouble.

@DaveTrade, I found it intriguing to introduce a trading system using just coloured dots. Specifically, it’s a two-dot system: (1) a Lime Dot and (2) a Fuchsia Dot.

The rules are straightforward
Buy the next day after a lime dot appears and sell the next day after a fuchsia dot. This system serves as an entry into system trading, allowing new traders to "evaluate and experiment" with a structured approach.

However, I have some reservations
I find it hard to believe anyone, even novice traders, would risk their capital on a strategy based on coloured dots. Additionally, I doubt that you or @Richard Dale would offer a forum member a strategy that is fully tested and profitable. I hope I’m wrong and my assumptions are off.

Skate.

 

[divs4ever]

@DaveTrade, I found it intriguing to introduce a trading system using just coloured dots. Specifically, it’s a two-dot system: (1) a Lime Dot and (2) a Fuchsia Dot.

The rules are straightforward
Buy the next day after a lime dot appears and sell the next day after a fuchsia dot. This system serves as an entry into system trading, allowing new traders to "evaluate and experiment" with a structured approach.

However, I have some reservations
I find it hard to believe anyone, even novice traders, would risk their capital on a strategy based on coloured dots. Additionally, I doubt that you or @Richard Dale would offer a forum member a strategy that is fully tested and profitable. I hope I’m wrong and my assumptions are off.

Skate.

i have no problem with your concept , but i have seen the inexperienced find all sorts of trouble ( in other areas )

and must side with @DaveTrade om the need for caution , moderation , and harsh self-appraisal when using it

 

[Skate]

@divs4ever, in my opinion, there is no right or wrong method when it comes to trading. What works for one person might not work for another. It’s up to each individual to decide which method resonates with them. A variety of opinions are welcome. The “Dump it here” thread is about the exchange of ideas & certainly “not a contest of ideas”.

In this thread, there is no “right or wrong” when views are expressed. Every member has the right to express their views without being challenged or ridiculed. There are just alternative views. Each reader will take something different from each of our posts. It might even be the catalyst for them to think about the topic being discussed on a deeper level or encourage them to do a bit of their own research.

When opinions are expressed, you take what you can from what is being presented. Some posts will resonate, and others will fall flat, but that doesn’t mean the information presented lacks value. What you regard as common knowledge, others may think is gold. Every post I’ve made in the “Dump it here” thread is in the hope of helping others. The ideas presented might just be the catalyst to spark an idea in someone else.

As far as the views put forward by @qldfrog, @peter2, @DaveTrade, and @Richard Dale, they all have merit. These members have presented their opinions, some coming from more experience than others, but all are valid. I truly appreciate when others take the time to post.

Skate.

 

[bettamania]

The two debaters don't seem to be on the same page, @Richard Dale is taking about a fully developed, comprehensively tested and released trading system, and @Skate is just presenting an idea to newbies as a way forward into trading. The danger, in my opinion, is if a new trader thinks that it's easy to develop a system like this that works consistently in all market conditions, then they may get themselves into trouble.

Wrong! my understanding is very clear! In order to be classified as a system you need to have a clear cut set of rules. Just look at the whole content of this post from the beginning.

1. different McDs were being introduced and there was an assumption " close enough is good enough. New variables are constantly being introduced over the time and it is unclear.

2. the set of rules and criteria are being secretively kept by author. None of the codes are being released. only Verbal based theory being offered. As you may aware without with coding this will leads to a lot of future interpretations and variants

Points 1& 2 concludes that He want to develop a system by gathering other people knowledge but nothing is given back in return. I am very fine with that and I assume others will too

3. Being polite and respectful is very important in this forum. As I said before be relax, be humble and have a bit of sense of humility. Most of us over here know how to trade and we got our system too. I am not surprise when Richard bring his academic qualification and coding experience in this forum to reply one of your message. Do you regard your self as a senior? experienced ? if so what makes you think so?

4. Oddity of the system. I am not a coder but when I look at the concept I know the logic is twisted and the rationality behind this thing is skewed.
*the system is presumably manually traded not an auto and if you flip over your picture how many buy and sell signal. As a human I would not be able to execute that signal and please don't tell me that you can. in ninja platform and mql platform; a signal like this often known as a segment of timeframe interpolation error that will create a lot of discrepancy within reality. In simple term this is a slippage. Do I have to explain a lot more on this topic? No I don't. My time is quite tight here
* an index only or a pair only has quite a significant DD . Question is where is yours and you are mentioning top 20 that means 20 candidates what would be your DD?

 

[DaveTrade]

Wrong! my understanding is very clear! In order to be classified as a system you need to have a clear cut set of rules. Just look at the whole content of this post from the beginning.

1. different McDs were being introduced and there was an assumption " close enough is good enough. New variables are constantly being introduced over the time and it is unclear.

2. the set of rules and criteria are being secretively kept by author. None of the codes are being released. only Verbal based theory being offered. As you may aware without with coding this will leads to a lot of future interpretations and variants

Points 1& 2 concludes that He want to develop a system by gathering other people knowledge but nothing is given back in return. I am very fine with that and I assume others will too

3. Being polite and respectful is very important in this forum. As I said before be relax, be humble and have a bit of sense of humility. Most of us over here know how to trade and we got our system too. I am not surprise when Richard bring his academic qualification and coding experience in this forum to reply one of your message. Do you regard your self as a senior? experienced ? if so what makes you think so?

4. Oddity of the system. I am not a coder but when I look at the concept I know the logic is twisted and the rationality behind this thing is skewed.
*the system is presumably manually traded not an auto and if you flip over your picture how many buy and sell signal. As a human I would not be able to execute that signal and please don't tell me that you can. in ninja platform and mql platform; a signal like this often known as a segment of timeframe interpolation error that will create a lot of discrepancy within reality. In simple term this is a slippage. Do I have to explain a lot more on this topic? No I don't. My time is quite tight here
* an index only or a pair only has quite a significant DD . Question is where is yours and you are mentioning top 20 that means 20 candidates what would be your DD?

Not sure what any of this has to do with my post.

 

[bettamania]

Not sure what any of this has to do with my post.

Forum is the place to exchange ideas but please the quality one if anyone keen to share. As with my reply I directed to Skate and with your post, nothing is wrong but in order to comment further please read it from the very beginning. I know you join this post from the mid late session

 

[DaveTrade]

Forum is the place to exchange ideas but please the quality one if anyone keen to share. As with my reply I directed to Skate and with your post, nothing is wrong but in order to comment further please read it from the very beginning. I know you join this post from the mid late session

@bettamania I don't want to get into this 'so called' debate between @Richard Dale and @Skate , I don't really like the way that either party is posting. I think that Richard is demanding something from Skate that Skate was never intending to do in the first place and I think that Skate could be misleading new traders by not explaining the shortfalls of what he is suggesting that they could do. I don't want to buy into this any further because it's getting too confrontational for me but I just thought it was the wright thing to do to post a warning to new traders.

 

[bettamania]

Ok let me show you last time I mentioned Allan hull system . but by the look at RoAR, this indi can not work as a stand alone indicator. I tweak it a bit and add another momentum indi similar to a random walk indicator but much better ( Mcd, stoch, and anything alike) and here is the pic


Now, can I say this as a system, or can I say this my universe stock selection? So , No!. I haven't test it despite the fact that looking nice. all ingredients are there except turnover or volume. The final signal similar to any random walk indi i.e. either crossing particular bench mark or crossing two MA

As I said to everyone, be relax, be polite and have a bit of sense of humility


Have a great night!