Why don´t you use the easiest strategy :
if ES volume > 15.000 / min > follow the trend. Otherwise stay out and enjoy the show program.
if ES volume > 15.000 / min > follow the trend. Otherwise stay out and enjoy the show program.


Quote from Algo_Design_Kid:
I see where you are going with the curve fitting. I just find it very difficult to believe I could curve fit 1-3 minutes in the ES getting in and out of positions within an average of 2-3 minutes at the very most. A lot of times it is has unloaded the position < 60 seconds. Doing this greater than 3000-5000 times. Anything is possible though.
Can you expand on what you are saying about adjusted price distribution please? I am not totally sure I follow.
Thanks
Are you continuously changing your system for market conditions in these short timeframes? For instance what length of time will you have the same strategy in play for in regards to your "tick" program?
No doubt. I am interested as well. I am wondering even if I am getting non real world preferential fills sometimes. It is all limit / stop orders that are either filled or cancelled at the close of every bar but I am skeptical if the real spread is always being accounted for.
I have been there before.
Quote from nLepwa:
The strategy doesn't change.
I place bets on well-defined stationary distributions that I obtain by adjusting price to volatility.
For instance you can see attached the past 1000 observations for a specific swiss stock.
As you can see on the graph, the price deviation from the mean is stationary (and almost gaussian distributed).
I wouldn't worry too much about very high frequency trading as in this kind of trading the edge lies mostly in the execution.
Compounding at a "low" frequency of 10 trades per day per instrument is enough to ensure you won't have a losing day (provided that you trade enough instruments).

Quote from dwpeters:
The volatility adjusted price is an interesting concept. Is this proprietary or can you point me to any additional information?
Quote from Corey:
More important, how do you trade it? MAESTRO posted, sometime around Dec 2009, a method talking about taking current price and dividing it by a volatility estimate (I think he used a 30-day ATR). De-trending (using a linear regression or something like that), you would get something that was nearly gaussian (the fat tails were almost non-existant). Or at least that was the claim.
The issue becomes: how do you trade it? If you know that your price, divided by your current level of volatility is too high ... what do you trade? You have two choices -- either price will increase, or volatility will decrease. So you would probably want to trade a long strangle of some sort, I suppose.
I never found much use for the information because I don't trade options -- but maybe I am missing something.
Quote from jack hershey:
I read the thread. Your opening post outlines the reasons for your failures.
Others comments, those who have a handle on analysis, are those you can switch to to establish a standard.
Just as you do not wish to reveal the details of what you are doing improperly, it probably not useful for anyone to rough out the way you have most things turned upside down, figuratively speaking.
As a simple starter comment that will be instructive to readers, skip using open and/or close data.
Quote from BigSalad:
I remember at the very first or second trading day of 2008 as the day I became convinced we were in for a larger correction than the "normal" twice-a-year scares. Then you had that first bank-thing in Feb/Mar and a proper credit crisis, banks in trouble etc started to become a serious worry. Although the markets shrugged it off at first, combining all this with the knowledge that the US housing bubble definitely had peaked and there was no other reason to be bullish than for short-term trades.
So to sum it up; my psyche changed immediately at the start of 2008, perhaps that's just a coincidence or "someone" else also saw it this way. Certainly with the bets GS et al set up against the housing market (evidenced by record profits) they probably also shifted their books before pushing the story publicly.
