How do you know if it's luck or real edge?

Quote from OddTrader:

My 2 cents:

Not sure whether validating a trading concept would be one of the ways. :confused:

Probably once luckily finding some real edges, you then would know quite well and sure it's not merely luck any more, even without knowing how to validate it. :confused: :D
 
Quote from martys:

Hi Eric,

Have you done testing on the effects of activate/deactivate using short-term confidence test on the your systems? BTW, I do perform confidence test on the overall history of my systems so I am not questioning that.

The reason I am asking is that there is also the logical idea of trading equity curves (such as activate/deactivate as the equity curve crossover its moving average etc.) . I found various methods of trading equity curves actually hurt the performance of my systems (they might help some other systems out there).

Yes, I do use a short term confidence test to determine when to activate/deactive a system, and not necessarily the overall history. Typically, I will arbitrarily use the most recent 120 trades, which might take me back 2-4 months into history. In this way, I will have my system automatically turn off when it begins to get out of synch with the market, hopefully preventing a downward spiraling equity curve.

I have not tested the 'performance' of this activate/deactivate strategy. In other words, I have not looked at the oveall equity curve results associated with changing the 120 trade confidence test to 90 days or 200 days, etc. Nor have I tested the results of simply leaving all systems active, all of the time. The overall equity curve looks very stable and smooth to me. My use of the activate/deactive logic is more of a risk control measure to ensure that I downsize my trading when things turn sour, and not necessarily an optimized on/off logic to maximize profits.

Also, I have never tried 'trading' my equity curve before, by deactivating my trading when the equity curve looked weak and due for a selloff, etc.

-Eric
 
Quote from TriPack:

This is the basic assumption that this type of analysis makes: that a smoother P&L curve will lead to future profits with more certainty than a bumpy P&L curve. One thing I stumbled upon was that I took an always in system, and tested it. It got like 60-70% confidence depending on the particular market it was applied to. Then I took the same system and only added a very tight profit target and stop loss (turning it into a scalping system) and did the tests again. Overall profitability went down significantly but the confidence level shot way up above 90% on virtually every market tested. So the conclusion I came to is that the confidence interval really measures the smoothness of returns, rather than whether that particular system may or may not be profitable over the long haul. This is from forward testing and observing these and other systems side by side. And specifically the confidence interval measures the short term smoothness of returns, which can be affected by a string of wins or losses in the short term, which may or may not continue. There is no guarantee that the system will stay hot or will stay cold, and I haven't found a way to test whether these hot/cold streaks tend to persist or not so I'm not certain that filtering out systems based on a low % is necessarily the best course.

Let me try to address what the confidence level calculations from the linked thread actually measure (more detailed information may already be on that thread, not sure). The confidence level attempts to mathematically determine the likelihood that a system has an expected average profit above zero, based upon the date you give to it. So, for example, the following three series of trade results will have exactly the same confidence level:

a) +$50, -$20, +200, +$10, - $20
b) +$500, -$200, +2000, +$100, - $200
c) +$5000, -$2000, +20000, +$1000, - $2000

In this case, examples b and c are the same P&L results, but multiplied by a factor of 10 and 100, respectively. All three examples will have the exact same statistical confidence, since the statistical confidence does not measure dollar profit or loss, but the likelihood that the average profit is above zero in the entire population (versus this small sample) of trades using this system.

For your systems tested, therefore, you can conclude that the implementation of the stop-loss and profit objective makes it more likely that the system will be profitable over the long run. Note that I am assuming that you have roughly the same number of data points for both tests (with stops/targets, versus without), because simply the increase in the number of datapoints will also increase your confidence level. This makes sense, right? You become more confident about a system's profitability after steadily making net profits in your first 30 trades, versus only your first 10 trades. So, to be fair comparing your systems with and without stops/targets, you should be sure that there is not a huge difference in the number of trades being using for each method in the confidence calculation.

Quote from TriPack:


Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your work and continue to seek out systems that as a general rule have smoother equity curves. I think having a systematic measurable approach is far superior to what I was doing previously. It is a good tool and I use it regularly.

I agree. Using the statistical confidence calculations is merely a tool, and does have shortcomings. I find it to be very valuable as well, and much better that what I used previously (manually making the on/off decision, without any structured methodology).

Quote from TriPack:


But the thing that gives me the most confidence in finding an edge is if I apply the same system to multiple markets without changing the system at all, and see if it achieves similar results in many different markets. If it does, my confidence goes up that there might be something there. If the system is a one market anomaly, then it is probably curve fit to the data.

Another good point. Systems that work across many markets are very nice when you find them. Another thing I look for is a system with very few optimized parameters, or better yet, a system that works well before any optimization is even done.

Best of luck,
-Eric

P.S. I am copying this post to the activate/deactive thread (Journal section) to help consolidate this confidence discussion in a single thread for better reference. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=746183#post746183
 
Quote from wyang:

What bothers me using any trading system is that I'm never sure if the performance is sheer luck (good or bad) or something real. Any ideas out there that can help me deal with this issue?

+================

Wyrang;

a]Does it work or work around at least 1 bull/1 bear market;
not a prediction, but can give you a hint.

b]Since 80% of small businesses fail, dont believe in luck;
but make sure we are 20% that win. Savings account may help.

z]Make sure it fits your gifts/personality, like longhorn bulls ,or ;
Teddy Roosevelt wouldnt hunt small bears,
but something like polar bear type hunting got in his heart.
 
Quote from wyang:

What bothers me using any trading system is that I'm never sure if the performance is sheer luck (good or bad) or something real. Any ideas out there that can help me deal with this issue?

I have a great way to figure it out. Look at your account balance 3 months after using system. That will tell you exactly what is happening.
 
Quote from EricP:



...
Also, I have never tried 'trading' my equity curve before, by deactivating my trading when the equity curve looked weak and due for a selloff, etc.
...

Actually some people also try the reverse logic for the mean-reverting effect...

For some trend following systems, the profitability relies mainly on a few big trades. Skipping them might be problematic. :confused:
 
Quote from illiquid:

I think this hits the nail on the head. Part of developing and implementing an edge is understanding exactly what it is you are exploiting or seeing ahead of the crowd.

What if what you think you are exploiting is as real as Santa? You need some sort of subjective measure to assure yourself, and do this at low cost.
 
Back
Top