Does the market really change?

I'm talking about specific edges that are clearly defined and have significant performance metrics over significant trades.

Trend-following systems offer PRECISELY that verifiable mathematical edge you are talking about, that's why I mentioned them.

Of all the trading systems out there, the ones that exploit the trending nature of all freely-traded financial markets are the more robust and the most consistently profitable.
 
It seems a common theme with traders that they find an edge in the market which works for a while, but then the market 'changes' and the edge disappears and starts losing money.

That's the nature of the markets.

All you have to do to have the market "knock you on your ass" is to keep doing what you did before that was successful. (How cruel is that?)

IOW... the market "shifts". Your objective as a trader is to "tune-in" and adjust.
 
My 5c. Take is with a grain of salt as anything you find online.

More often than not edge is there longer than many people think. That is for edges that are found on 10y+ data samples.

What typically happens is - market becomes more efficient and edge's expectancy goes down. Depending on the way how you extracted that edge (commissions structure, access to leverage, size of account, exact setup etc) - edge might become non tradable or profit potential not worth a risk anymore.

Quite often when someone says they've got an edge they mean they "feel" they have an edge but their data sample is not statistically significant. Edge discovered on a short time periods like 1-3 year or tested only during one sample of one market type will also not likely to last.

Edge also might more or less suddenly disappear due to
  1. A significant market change (decimalization, too strict margin requirement, wide spread of commissionless trading). Basically that means that something that has been not widely available now is not, or you are no longer able to trade this way
  2. Disappearance of the market traded
  3. Regulations
I try to stick to edges that can be
  1. Precisely measured
  2. Have 3000+ trades in test sample
  3. Tested across multiple market cycles and market types
  4. Work over at least 30 years, preferably 50
Good ones I've tested going back to 1950. Some would consistently get worse every decade but are still tradable.

Less obvious but quite popular, in my opinion, reason for edge to stop working - a setup is too specific.

the less rules a setup has > the more trades it will generate > the more significant findings will be > the better chance it will keep working in the future

All the edges I use are going back to at least early 80-ies, most all the way to 50-ies. Before - I don't have data to check, but that is sufficient proof for me.

My journal

Val
%%
Good.
Amen on using all data;
QQQ goes back to 1999.
Markets like QQQ tend to go up/uptrend 75% of the time; but have bear trended down 80% for 3 years bear. NOT really a mystery.Markets can only;
uptrend,
downtrend,
chop-slop-sideways trend/barbed wire range......................................................
Back to my uptrending charts
 
Does this mean that markets don't trend? No. But no one can define a trend a priori, either.

Oh please, a simple data series analysis shows that market's prices are not normally distributed.

In other words, markets trend, meaning they have the tendency to keep doing whatever they were doing.
 
Trend-following systems offer PRECISELY that verifiable mathematical edge you are talking about, that's why I mentioned them.

Of all the trading systems out there, the ones that exploit the trending nature of all freely-traded financial markets are the more robust and the most consistently profitable.

There's nothing consistent about trend-following. Trend-following funds had been lagging other strategies in the fund world for years before 2020. Many of these funds were making boatloads in the 80s, 90s and in the 00s they went flat.
In fact the contrarian funds have vastly outperformed trend-following recently.

What's the verifiable edge you're talking about? Sounds like you have the market figured out and can demonstrate this through numbers. I'd be happy to backtest this as you're talking in general terms -- saying a trading style is all you need to produce profit, strategy being irrelevant.

You're talking as details are irrelevant. Absolutely everything in the markets is about details, finding needle(s) in a haystack. All broad generalizations are useless and based on nothing.
 
Back
Top