
Quote from hughb:
OK, so this debate is finally over. The method that produces zero losing trades popped out a loser on it's first live call. Can we close the thread now?
Quote from nkhoi:
the traditional way of backtest is to cover as large number of stocks as you can for a long period of time as long as you can get the data. I see you are doing that.
Quote from firestorm:
Oh he didn't anticipate the loss
he took the loss... which is quite strange for a method that never loses
I do feel sorry for JJ though, he at least had the balls to do what the others didn't, i knew what the result would be but he obviously was more hopeful, but I give him big ball credits
I don't know how backtesting works.Quote from jack hershey:
And 24,000 trades on X amount in capital lost 17 bucks each.
would an ordinary backtester use a statisitical approach than would tate the results in a comprehensive way?
We know so far that if the trades were done in the opposite direction (contrarian) that they also lose money.
What is still missing from the report out is what he did. That may help to know.
My guess is that he did something with some amount of capital to be able to get the loss as he covered the waterfront.
Another thread, just started, takes up failure and its consequences. I wonder what the consequence is of failing at backtesting? Is the example trader666?
A lot of people offered him assistance and he was unable to accept it.
Quote from makosgu:
Don't forget to point out that you used the wrong portfolio(s)... AHA