Quote from januson:
What? Who are you, what's your agenda? 
You are wrong in every single aspect, a strategy is highly adapted to a specific market nature.
If you were going to have a strategy work for multiple markets you would do exactly as all other noobs that think optimization is required to have a robust system and your pockets would soon dry out of money.
I disagree that you need to build from "the ground up" for a new market. One example of this in the public domain is the ACD method. If your strategy framework is generic enough, it can be adapted to new markets. The issue is that there are very few of these kinds of frameworks (ACD, Demark, and Elliott Wave come to mind) and the ones in the public domain obviously need to be customized for the individual trader. Anyone capable of developing a framework at this level or customizing it profitably is definitely not a noob.
While my experience is limited to about three months, the examples of Crude, the Euro and the ES are already showing me some differences within them, even though the overall framework is the same. Compared to the ES, Crude has a bigger payout ratio and is less sensitive to the value range of my primary parameter, for example, and the Euro gives far more false positive signals and appears to require an additional parameter to help filter them, while both create sets of trades which, when filtered, can be taken in reverse, while the ES does not.
So, those are some examples of how the framework needs to adapt to different markets, but it was definitely not necessary to start over in trying to add these markets to my trading. I was not sure if it would be when I started, so I had an open mind, but as the data is coming in, it seems to be on the side of affirming the hypothesis that my framework is generic enough to trade multiple markets.
Obviously, this could all change in a short period of time, but if something were going to go terribly wrong, I would think it would have started to already.
