Our 400,000 Trade Test Proves Using Stops Is Not Very Bright

Ladies and gentlemen, judging by the amount of emojis used, you're seeing a losing trader come apart.

Quite the opposite actually, as I got sidetracked for a while, but, glad to say my head is now back exactly where it was before my sidetracking, and I must thank ye monkeys for my speedy recovery:D

When you actually see the idiots you are trading against talking, it confirms how thick they really are, and enforces the required mindset that is required when trading against monkeys.:sneaky:

If you think I am joking, just read what you actually write:D

J_S
 
Botpro is still trying to figure out how he must adjust his simulated data for the time change :D

Wait, are you saying the stock market is not open on Sunday Morning?? :wtf:

Likely just a manufactured good excuse in order to attract low-knowledge investors, imo! Not a new trick on ET at all!
 
This is the results of 400,000 tested trades--- like it or not, it is the facts-- don't believe it? If you got the data, run the test yourself---so you either listen to quantitative facts or continue to go by "feelings" and old wives tales about the market.


Stops are an integral part of most stock trader’s arsenal. Many consider it foolhardy and naïve to trade without a fixed stop in place prior to entering a position.

As with most of the conventional market wisdom, these feelings do not hold up to vigorous testing. We have run 100’s of tests have that have proven fixed stops actually hurt the performance of any trading system.

One example took all shares trading above their 200 day Simple Moving Average closing at its 10 day low. The trade would be exited on a close above its 10 day Simple Moving Average or when a stop is hit at a variety of percentage points below the entry.

Out of nearly 400,000 tested trades, stops hurt the performance of the system. In fact, the tighter the stop, the worse the performance. Even stops as wide as 50% away from the entry dampened the systems returns. Of course there are psychological benefits to using fixed stops but at the expense of profit. Dropping the fixed stops is a sure way to improve the results of your trading system.
This isn't proof of anything. It is not shocking that a system designed with terrible entries will produce terrible results.

If you don't know where to enter, how in the hell can you know where to exit?
 
What everyone seems to have missed ....

How does one get the results of over 400,000 individual trades, by only running 100's of tests?

We have run 100’s of tests have that have proven fixed stops actually hurt the performance of any trading system.

Out of nearly 400,000 tested trades, stops hurt the performance of the system.

How does one test individual trades with an aggregate?

Typical, Durf hyperbole...
 
That's a quote from J_Smith in September last year. So in less than 6 months he went from knowing nothing to being someone "in the know".

His attempts to hide his fear and lack of knowledge behind overconfidence is blatantly obvious.


Can I 'like' that 5 times?
 
Wow, great to see that even after Surfs report thread has been moved to the garbage area, he can still pollute ET better than anyone else.

I think people need to realize that when arguing with Surf, you are arguing with a guy who has blown out trading a few times and never "got it". He's a failed trader who "writes" about it now. Of course he's gonna say stops are bad. He lost at trading every time without using stops.

Guys who trade without stops (or at least a price area that they will get out of a loss no matter what) all end up blowing out. I have seen it tons of times over the last 20+ years. It's not rocket science here. They end up holding losing positions way too long and either have a series of a few huge losers wipe them out, or one gigantic one.

It amazes me at times that traders who have blown out will come on here and defend their crappy views on risk management: "Stops are bad for performance". Really.......how about trades where your losers are 10 times bigger than your winners? How does that work for the performance.

Again, consider the source here guys. The OP is a failed trader.

Thank you and good day.
 
The Stock Tip. 1990 Seinfeld episode.
Jerry lost, he was stopped out. -- While George cleaned up. :p

stock_tip_2.jpg

stock_tip_222.jpg

tumblr_inline_nyf3wus_PUM1tolax0_540.jpg

http://www.crackle.com/seinfeld/2483704
 
Last edited:
What everyone seems to have missed ....

How does one get the results of over 400,000 individual trades, by only running 100's of tests?



How does one test individual trades with an aggregate?

Typical, Durf hyperbole...

This is bizzare reasoning

One test can be run on a data base of 400,000 trades OR 1000 tests can be run on the same data.

I don't get your point.

surf
 
Wow, great to see that even after Surfs report thread has been moved to the garbage area, he can still pollute ET better than anyone else.

I think people need to realize that when arguing with Surf, you are arguing with a guy who has blown out trading a few times and never "got it". He's a failed trader who "writes" about it now. Of course he's gonna say stops are bad. He lost at trading every time without using stops.

Guys who trade without stops (or at least a price area that they will get out of a loss no matter what) all end up blowing out. I have seen it tons of times over the last 20+ years. It's not rocket science here. They end up holding losing positions way too long and either have a series of a few huge losers wipe them out, or one gigantic one.

It amazes me at times that traders who have blown out will come on here and defend their crappy views on risk management: "Stops are bad for performance". Really.......how about trades where your losers are 10 times bigger than your winners? How does that work for the performance.

Again, consider the source here guys. The OP is a failed trader.

Thank you and good day.

It's the results of an empirical study. You can believe it or not.

man, your town was a zoo last night for st patty day. Insanity!
 
Not bizarre at all, no parameters were given (proprietary and all)

How is anyone to determine how 400,000 trades can be tested accurately with only a few hundred tests... let alone what "hurts" implies... I would gladly give up a percentage of profit, if I can decrease my chance of ruin...

But then again, generalizations... can't be confirmed or denied... as is typical
 
Back
Top