I think someone found the holy grail
- Thread starter Dna7272
- Start date
Thank you so much wmwmw! A few follow-ups:
1. When you say "The method is to subscribe like 10 strategies and replace those that failed", what do you mean by "failed"? What is your definition of a fail?
2. When you say "good strategies longer than 3 years are zero" - what do you mean exactly? For example, here is one that has been around well over 3 years:
https://collective2.com/details/117734561
It has over a 45% annual return, and less than a 25% max drowdown. That would be an absolute winner in my book, far far better than I could ever do! You would consider that a fail? Tough grader!
I see the grid now, thanks, exactly what I needed!
Interesting how your strategy, follow them and when one does bad kick it out, differs from my initial reaction as to what a good strategy might be. Putting the subscription cost aside, let's say you had 10 different strategies that produced a 50% annual return each but each had a 100% drawdown (i.e. it goes completely bust) once every 10 years.
I would put equal amounts into each of those ten strategies, so if I started with $100 I would put $10 in each. In any given years, one of those is likely to go bust, so you are -$10 on that one, but also in any given year the remainders will on average gain $5 each ($10 x 50% return), or $45 totaly (9*$5). So in any given year you could expect to be up 35%. Which is hugely good in my mind, even starting with the very bad 100% drawdown percentage and (apparently) no so great 50% annual return averages (many of those strategies apparently have much, much better results).
I also don't know if just sticking with the single best long-term one is the best way to go - maybe its just been luck that IT hasn't had its bust yet, and some weird set of circumstances are going to come about to cause it to bust. Maybe getting a strategy that has had HUGE (say 100%) annual returns over time, but just had a really, really bad drawdown (50% or more) is the thing to do because it has had its set of weird circumstances hit it already.
But I dunno. Some of those numbers are certainly eye-popping.
The thing about them being able to set up an unlimited number of accounts/strategies, then killing off the 9 out of 10 that did bad or just ok, keeping the 1 that did good, is troubling, that means that "strategy" could have just been 100% luck...
Thanks so much for the help!!!
It all comes to what you think is a good strategy?
My concept of a good strategy is in my short list.
But everyone has his own criteria.Same for what is a "failed" strategy.
Thank you so much wmwmw! A few follow-ups:
1. When you say "The method is to subscribe like 10 strategies and replace those that failed", what do you mean by "failed"? What is your definition of a fail?
2. When you say "good strategies longer than 3 years are zero" - what do you mean exactly? For example, here is one that has been around well over 3 years:
https://collective2.com/details/117734561
It has over a 45% annual return, and less than a 25% max drowdown. That would be an absolute winner in my book, far far better than I could ever do! You would consider that a fail? Tough grader!
I see the grid now, thanks, exactly what I needed!
Interesting how your strategy, follow them and when one does bad kick it out, differs from my initial reaction as to what a good strategy might be. Putting the subscription cost aside, let's say you had 10 different strategies that produced a 50% annual return each but each had a 100% drawdown (i.e. it goes completely bust) once every 10 years.
I would put equal amounts into each of those ten strategies, so if I started with $100 I would put $10 in each. In any given years, one of those is likely to go bust, so you are -$10 on that one, but also in any given year the remainders will on average gain $5 each ($10 x 50% return), or $45 totaly (9*$5). So in any given year you could expect to be up 35%. Which is hugely good in my mind, even starting with the very bad 100% drawdown percentage and (apparently) no so great 50% annual return averages (many of those strategies apparently have much, much better results).
I also don't know if just sticking with the single best long-term one is the best way to go - maybe its just been luck that IT hasn't had its bust yet, and some weird set of circumstances are going to come about to cause it to bust. Maybe getting a strategy that has had HUGE (say 100%) annual returns over time, but just had a really, really bad drawdown (50% or more) is the thing to do because it has had its set of weird circumstances hit it already.
But I dunno. Some of those numbers are certainly eye-popping.
The thing about them being able to set up an unlimited number of accounts/strategies, then killing off the 9 out of 10 that did bad or just ok, keeping the 1 that did good, is troubling, that means that "strategy" could have just been 100% luck...
Thanks so much for the help!!!
I use grid to search for strategies that were over 1080 days and > 30% annual return and < 30% maximum drawdown, I got none.
So how comes your strategy?
https://collective2.com/details/117734561
I had no idea why that strategy didn't show up in your search wmwmw, it sure should have! So that one is among the best you've seen, correct?
Finally hit a snag, sideways/down for the last 4 weeks. From 762K (ATH) to 678K. That is -11%
I was thinking this at C2 is real trading.
But it says "These are hypothetical performance results that have certain inherent limitations"
And also says "Num Trades = 101"
But below it says "This strategy has placed 163 trades in real-life brokerage accounts. ..."
Why these discrepancies?
But it says "These are hypothetical performance results that have certain inherent limitations"
And also says "Num Trades = 101"
But below it says "This strategy has placed 163 trades in real-life brokerage accounts. ..."
Why these discrepancies?
He is mostly long Puts, the market is in rally mode so... I don't get why someone can't play both sides of the market?
Last edited: