Why bother backtesting?

[dmedin]

Here's some light reading for when you're not designing highly-profitable algorithms.

https://www.nature.com/subjects/theoretical-nuclear-physics#:~:text=Theoretical nuclear physics is the,are more stable than others.

[jlz]

3 minutes ago, dmedin said:

Here's some light reading for when you're not designing highly-profitable algorithms.

https://www.nature.com/subjects/theoretical-nuclear-physics#:~:text=Theoretical nuclear physics is the,are more stable than others.

Thanks , Nuclear physics are flying over my head but I can see the sarcasm there. No one said that I am able to produce highly-profitable algos by the way. They are more survival attempts than anything else.

[THT]

1 hour ago, dmedin said:

 

Why?  Are you going to write an algorithm too?

Theoretical physicists are clever people but you won't get anything useful out of listening to them.  

I know nothing about Algo's, but you'd have to be a right numpty not to just set into motion an algo if it makes money and exploit it - if you could write algo's and just let it run.

I think from memory Dr John Clayburg who was attached to Trade the Markets used to do this 10+ years ago but using indicators and it was profitable but had big drawdowns (when the use of trading a blind indicator failed) 

Have you explored Theoretical physicists, science in the markets? - I have and I can tell you I'd prefer to listen to them and their science/modelling techniques than some market guru with the latest method for sale.

The markets are not what you and 99% of people out there think they are - Science controls them

[THT]

2 hours ago, jlz said:

My approach is manly looking to minimise my chances to loose. I do not aim to make any profit so I look primarily at bet sizing to maximise  the number of trades I can send. Reports from my backtesting showed that I can't predict any trade to be profitable so I just make sure that I have enough funds to try again if I am wrong.

I choose markets that won't make huge changes so I only trade in Indices. I chose those markets because of their natural inclination to stay in a range of values so my gains won't be huge but since the aim is to minimise loses they will work best for the algorithm.

The bet size will be the minimal allowed or very close to minimal with a small increment if the previous trades have been profitable. I have been trading with the minimal size for about a year now, and I don't see the size increasing any time soon, so we can count that the bet size is the minimum.

I do not use more than 30% of the equity at anytime. If the account reaches that value it will stop and will take loses. 

I send trades randomly to both sides of the book without taking any criteria to enter, it only checks that there is a trade already or not to trigger another one.

It started with one Index and it is trading now in 5 indexes, any new market is being added if the funds allow the equity level to be below 30%. 

I do not set stops as such at any level, the equity limit will trigger closing orders to gain the margin required back in order to reach that level of equity. So if there is any trade incurring in a loss it will close it  regardless of the amount, the aim is to maintain the account alive to trade with enough equity.

Profits are taken following basic market volatility. This volatility is calculated every hour, so the "take profit order" limit will change depending on the market and its action. Since the volatility calculation is random, profits are random as well. Looking at previous trades they vary from 10 to 60 points the most.

The result is a very very conservative algorithm that yields small profits after "surviving" many losing attempts

Amazing - its an edge, the edge works on the numbers, then simply repeat, repeat, repeat

Thanks for sharing, appreciated

[THT]

1 hour ago, dmedin said:

Here's some light reading for when you're not designing highly-profitable algorithms.

https://www.nature.com/subjects/theoretical-nuclear-physics#:~:text=Theoretical nuclear physics is the,are more stable than others.

The irony here though is that it's proven and published that some markets have followed the sequence of integers found in atoms- So we can actually see that those "Theoretical physicists" actually could be extremely useful in the markets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

Just because you don't know something does not mean it does not apply to the markets

see below: 

Remember we live on a planet that travels around a star, on this planet EVERYTHING follows the laws of nature, natural law of growth and decomposition which can be measured and proven by mathematics and science!

Any reference to the Square of 12 in the text below is derived from our very good friend WD Gann! which is why I keep on and on and on mentioning his name

[dmedin]

So in summary, no retail traders are making money.

Case closed.

[jlz]

1 hour ago, dmedin said:

So in summary, no retail traders are making money.

Case closed.

Let's keep it alive so people can see it and add their comments.

I

[dmedin]

250,000+ clients and not even 25 of them post on this forum ...

 

[jlz]

You are right, but someone that asked the question in the first place wouldn't want the thread to be closed, so more people can add their comments, even if it is the number 26.

That is what a regular forum user would do. Someone that doesn't seem to be trying to meet a quota of posts.

[dmedin]

4 hours ago, THT said:

The irony here though is that it's proven and published that some markets have followed the sequence of integers found in atoms- So we can actually see that those "Theoretical physicists" actually could be extremely useful in the markets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

Just because you don't know something does not mean it does not apply to the markets

see below: 

Remember we live on a planet that travels around a star, on this planet EVERYTHING follows the laws of nature, natural law of growth and decomposition which can be measured and proven by mathematics and science!

Any reference to the Square of 12 in the text below is derived from our very good friend WD Gann! which is why I keep on and on and on mentioning his name

 

 

I've stated before what I think about you blanking out words to try and make yourself look knowledgeable, and I would fain repeat it.  Maybe I will get permanently banned, which is what I really need, but I doubt IG would turn off my trading account because I am a MUG who gets ROBBED BLIND every day and they only care about making money.  THATCHERITE C&NTS

[dmedin]

13 minutes ago, jlz said:

You are right, but someone that asked the question in the first place wouldn't want the thread to be closed, so more people can add their comments, even if it is the number 26.

That is what a regular forum user would do. Someone that doesn't seem to be trying to meet a quota of posts.

 

 

I want that question settled so that I can move on in my life.   No more prize-winning bullsh!tters who are 'experts' on disproven sh!te from the 1930s.

[THT]

3 hours ago, dmedin said:

 

 

I've stated before what I think about you blanking out words to try and make yourself look knowledgeable, and I would fain repeat it.  Maybe I will get permanently banned, which is what I really need, but I doubt IG would turn off my trading account because I am a MUG who gets ROBBED BLIND every day and they only care about making money.  THATCHERITE C&NTS

I don't care what you think - If you had a clue and were a professional trader maybe I'd take notice - I don't care what you do, you seem to be your own worst enemy

What I can say is don't make comments with certainty if you have not got a clue - some of us are exceptionally well read, informed and have cracked the markets

I've posted stuff no-one else on here has, it novices might fall for multiple posts per day with no substance, those of us who actually know the markets can right through the posts 

I have absolutely no issues with you learning, but just don't pretend to know things about the markets as fact without having researched them, as I've shown, I'm quite happy to call you out as I've done my research - you won't like it, but making posts about the markets that simply are not true is as bad as the sharks selling indicators and courses claiming to be the holy grail

I've spent years researching the markets - the knowledge to truly understand them is out there in black and white, I blank out info because its actually a trade marked group of letters and if i want to blank out certain things i can do so without you permission I don't see any reason why I should hand it to you on a plate, which is another reason why i do so - I had to work, research, test, test and test to discover, no reason why you and others don't too

Also its not all about you - there could be said sharks of the industry on here as members, don't plan of feeding them

[dmedin]

tl;dr

You're full of BS.

Edited October 5, 2020 by dmedin