Because failure does not mean a guaranteed money-losing. Instead it’s going to be neither here nor there and going to slowly bleed transaction costs.Everyone says that you shouldn't curve fit a system perfectly because it will fail. So why not perfectly curve fit a system and then just do the opposite of that system?
Everyone says that you shouldn't curve fit a system perfectly because it will fail. So why not perfectly curve fit a system and then just do the opposite of that system?
It might not fail completely. Just give you huge drawdowns.
When testing a curve fit system it might give worst case 25% drawdowns with average 100% yearly returns. Sounds excellent.
But in real world trading, because the system was curve fit, it might actually give 75% drawdowns and only 25% return.
If you attempt to trade a system with 75% drawdowns you will eventually fail in your execution due to psychological issues. Even if you automate such a strategy you will eventually turn it off and fail.
If you attempt to fade the same system you will also eventually fail as the system is net profitable. If the system went into drawdown straight away and you faded the drawdown and made 75%, that will all be lost + more when the system recovers.
For example, you take stock long trades triggered by some buy signal. Development would be a filter to disregard buy signals received while the stock's index is bearish. Curve-fitting would be a filter to use smaller position sizes on losing trades - these could only be identified after the event.
Everyone is wrong : system fail not because of perfect fit, but because the fit itself is no substitution for finding fundamental rules of the market!Everyone says that you shouldn't curve fit a system perfectly because it will fail. So why not perfectly curve fit a system and then just do the opposite of that system?
What about applying technical analysis to the equity curve of the system?It might not fail completely. Just give you huge drawdowns.
When testing a curve fit system it might give worst case 25% drawdowns with average 100% yearly returns. Sounds excellent.
But in real world trading, because the system was curve fit, it might actually give 75% drawdowns and only 25% return.
If you attempt to trade a system with 75% drawdowns you will eventually fail in your execution due to psychological issues. Even if you automate such a strategy you will eventually turn it off and fail.
If you attempt to fade the same system you will also eventually fail as the system is net profitable. If the system went into drawdown straight away and you faded the drawdown and made 75%, that will all be lost + more when the system recovers.
Everyone says that you shouldn't curve fit a system perfectly because it will fail. So why not perfectly curve fit a system and then just do the opposite of that system?