In my first experiences of backtesting systems I have noticed an interesting phenomenon in both cases. First of all, these were "idea first" systems which were created with the conscious intention of capturing certain classic behavior in intraday trading. What I mean to say, is that these were not "random" systems that just seem to work through trial and error. What I have noticed is that both systems tended to be more robust over the past couple years. They would both work well with a variety of parameters and the performance was regular and consistant. However, the further I go back, the more flippant both of the the systems would become. Ideal parameters would change often. There was more blowups. The performance was much less consistant and would range from great to terrible and back again (on a monthly basis). I am finding it difficult to set any parameters that would make the system work consistently back then even though the same kind of market behavior was in action. It seems like the intraday trading was implemented in a less consistant manner. It is as if the market is becoming more organized as more and more algorithmic trading comes into the market.
For those of you who have been doing this a while, have you noticed the market becoming more and more condusive to systems trading?
(These were both systems for oil futures, so perhaps the phenomenon is specific to that market)
For those of you who have been doing this a while, have you noticed the market becoming more and more condusive to systems trading?
(These were both systems for oil futures, so perhaps the phenomenon is specific to that market)
Last edited: