You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Activate/Deactivate System?
- Thread starter EricP
- Start date
Quote from EricP:
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Assuming that their is a statistical confidence level of 99%+ that as system is profitable... => Why in the world would I want to deactivate it from real trading? I wish every single system that I trade had that high of a confidence level. Obviously, I'm using the assumption that my testing was valid and that the results are not "too good to be true" due to an error on my part.
Assuming that there are no significant errors in my testing (which better be the case, or else reviewing the statistics is worthless in the first place), then I would certainly NOT deactivate such a system.
I guess I'm not sure of your point. Under what circumstances would you consider deactivating the systems that appear to be the best ones you have?
-Eric
I tested your idea on one short-term system as following:
System sample size: 3666
Average return: -0.42%
Using activation/deactivation with last 120 trade results:
x>=2 & x<=2.5
average return 0.34%
x>=2.5
average return -0.50%
This system only trades big cap stocks. Your activation/deactivation strategy can turn a money-loss system into a winning system. That is great. However, when x>=2.5, it does not do well. Do you see any results like that in your testing? Or it is system dependent.
Thanks,
Jim
Quote from metooxx:
Eric;
Thank you; brilliant idea if implemented properly. I worked on something similar last year which we did not test properly and discarded; it took your posts to revive the concept.
Michael
I'm glad it was able to help you.
I keep telling myself that "one of these days" I'm going to start trading options. Currently, I still have my hands full expanding my Nasdaq trading, and will likely pursue NYSE once I run out of Nasdaq ideas. However, once I get around to options, I'll be sure to give you a call.
Best of luck,
-Eric
Quote from mc107:
This system only trades big cap stocks. Your activation/deactivation strategy can turn a money-loss system into a winning system. That is great. However, when x>=2.5, it does not do well. Do you see any results like that in your testing? Or it is system dependent.
Thanks,
Jim
Jim,
Sorry, I just noticed this post. I have never encountered a situation where the future profits are negative when the past profits are 'too good.' From my experience, better the past returns lead to (on average) better future returns.
It may be possible that your sample size with x > 2.5 might not be sufficient to provide statistically valid results. Also, as you point out, it might be a system dependent issue where this is a repeatable issue for your system.
Good luck,
-Eric
Quote from prophet:
Anyone looking at autocorrelation of returns versus:
1) time scale of returns
2) design space parameters
??
Not me. In fact, I must admit that I haven't a clue what either of those are. Sorry.
Care to elaborate on what they are and why you think they may be useful for trading system applications?
Thanks,
-Eric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation
Autocorrelation of returns is correlation(return[1...t-1],return[2...t]), or in other words the correlation between a series of returns and the same series of returns shifted one period forward or backward. Returns can be per-minute, per-day, or per-trade. It is a simple test to answer the questions:
Do returns come in streaks?
Do they oscillate?
Is there no pattern at all (random walk)?
It is particularly interesting to calculate autocorrelation across different time scales, and across the design space of a system. Why? Strong autocorrelating systems on short time scales naturally perform better with stops. So instead of brute force or real money testing different forms of stop losses, profit targets, trailing stops, or MA smoothing rules, look for the root cause of stop loss success⦠AUTOCORRELATION!
Even if a systemâs long-term net profitability is zero or negative, a strong positive (trending returns) or negative (oscillatory returns) autocorrelation on certain time scales can be taken advantage of in a system-of-systems design. Methods include activation/deactivation rules, regression, ranking/screens, or trend following rules.
A system with autocorrelation close to zero, even if nicely profitable will have volatile returns and will be more dangerous and psychologically painful to trade. You wonât know the system is dead until youâve taken on significant losses⦠when it effectively becomes strongly autocorrelating. Better to trade a strong autocorrelating system-of-system design that will automatically kill a dying system for you before losses accumulate.
Autocorrelation of returns is correlation(return[1...t-1],return[2...t]), or in other words the correlation between a series of returns and the same series of returns shifted one period forward or backward. Returns can be per-minute, per-day, or per-trade. It is a simple test to answer the questions:
Do returns come in streaks?
Do they oscillate?
Is there no pattern at all (random walk)?
It is particularly interesting to calculate autocorrelation across different time scales, and across the design space of a system. Why? Strong autocorrelating systems on short time scales naturally perform better with stops. So instead of brute force or real money testing different forms of stop losses, profit targets, trailing stops, or MA smoothing rules, look for the root cause of stop loss success⦠AUTOCORRELATION!
Even if a systemâs long-term net profitability is zero or negative, a strong positive (trending returns) or negative (oscillatory returns) autocorrelation on certain time scales can be taken advantage of in a system-of-systems design. Methods include activation/deactivation rules, regression, ranking/screens, or trend following rules.
A system with autocorrelation close to zero, even if nicely profitable will have volatile returns and will be more dangerous and psychologically painful to trade. You wonât know the system is dead until youâve taken on significant losses⦠when it effectively becomes strongly autocorrelating. Better to trade a strong autocorrelating system-of-system design that will automatically kill a dying system for you before losses accumulate.
Can I do the autocorrelation test in Excel? What would the formula be?
Thanks,
ges
Thanks,
ges
Quote from prophet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation
Autocorrelation of returns is correlation(return[1...t-1],return[2...t]), or in other words the correlation between a series of returns and the same series of returns shifted one period forward or backward. Returns can be per-minute, per-day, or per-trade. It is a simple test to answer the questions:
Do returns come in streaks?
Do they oscillate?
Is there no pattern at all (random walk)?
It is particularly interesting to calculate autocorrelation across different time scales, and across the design space of a system. Why? Strong autocorrelating systems on short time scales naturally perform better with stops. So instead of brute force or real money testing different forms of stop losses, profit targets, trailing stops, or MA smoothing rules, look for the root cause of stop loss success⦠AUTOCORRELATION!
Even if a systemâs long-term net profitability is zero or negative, a strong positive (trending returns) or negative (oscillatory returns) autocorrelation on certain time scales can be taken advantage of in a system-of-systems design. Methods include activation/deactivation rules, regression, ranking/screens, or trend following rules.
A system with autocorrelation close to zero, even if nicely profitable will have volatile returns and will be more dangerous and psychologically painful to trade. You wonât know the system is dead until youâve taken on significant losses⦠when it effectively becomes strongly autocorrelating. Better to trade a strong autocorrelating system-of-system design that will automatically kill a dying system for you before losses accumulate.