Quote from Indrionas:
I have opinion about this so called edge.
Finding an edge is not hard.
The problem is that you find this edge from the past data and you don't know how long it will last. This is what happened to me (I know, I am still newbie in trading). I found what looked like a very good edge: it was intraday trade of opening range breakout. I tested it back for about two years of data, that is about 500 trading days, which meant about 700 trades. Now this would be statistically significant sample, right?
So I started trading with real money, at the start it looked good, but I still didn't increase my position size (the profit cushion wasn't that great). Six months of trading resulted in breakeven, one month you're in profit, then you're in loss, etc. Then bam slam and I lost 45% of my equity (lucky me it was not a big account - just for learning purposes). What happened? I was prepared to sustain twice as big drawdown as the backtest of two years showed. But what happened is that even bigger drawdown kicked in and you wake up to realize that your "edge" is just a dream![]()
There can be considerable differences between historical results and actual trading results. This is usually a function of either trader effects, random effects, optimisation or curve fitting.
I am not surprised the historical results were different to actual results for an open range break out method. I have seen quite a bit of publicity of this method recently.
I imagine the differences you encountered could be due to trader effects. That is to say, if traders notice a method is working well it means they might start using similar methods, which in turn increases the probability that it won't work as well in the future.
Trader effects is one reason I believe you should develop your own edges based on market observation, rather than try and trade well known methods.
