Try...
M1 envelope 30ema 0.02 and Envelope 60ema 0.03
There MA Based, but X distance away, simple trend logic, working great!
Rewind Back 15 Years
- Thread starter padutrader
- Start date
Try...
M1 envelope 30ema 0.02 and Envelope 60ema 0.03
There MA Based, but X distance away, simple trend logic, working great!
Have you programmed it across multiple assets and run back test over let's say 10 years, both shorts and longs?
No but feel free, although don't believe in automation, so kinda irrelevant.
Then it is subjective, not my cup of tea.
It would be subjective if there's no rules for entry, trade management and profit targets and without any market context (structure).
Reason why some will have positive expectancy in their backtests while other have a negative expectancy in their backtests.
Another variable usually not mention by those that talk about backtest results...money management.
Reason why I don't like to throw out general statements about backtest results (it has an edge or it does not have an edge) unless those variables are specifically discussed as in the details with those results.
wrbtrader
Last edited:
Early in my journey to full automation, I looked at MAs, Bollinger, Stochastics and etc, with various money management modules. They all lost in the long run in my backtest. Did not work for me. One of my favorites was coding 123, it was not easy, also no positive expectancy over long run between short/long. It did work decently for longs, over last 10 years on S&P, for obvious reasons.
So MAs dont work objectively for a computer program, subjectively for a human that can think different story, why your back test is pointoess to me.
You did Nodoji from the back?
So, what your saying is, a Program written by you atleast can't make a profit.
Can't teach a computer experience, wisdom, that gut feeling you get from 10years of failing.
I do not know the settings of your MAs, Bollinger, Stochastics and etc...on what time frame tested, on which specific markets and for what tested period (e.g. start to end).
Also, I do not know what type of settings in your money management modules you used. In addition, I do not know if such was tested as an automated trading system in which the entry & exit was automated.
The same is true for someone that states it works (has a positive expectancy).
Yet, we all know that people say something they backtested and then simulated traded...it works but they can not make money with it in real money...obviously what was backtested was not an automated trading system but just something that's rule based.
I take all of this backtesting stuff with a grain of salt from both sides of the coin until someone provides the specific details (parameters) they used entry, exit, stop/loss protection, money management and so on.
Just saying I used many different modules without the specific information is no better than those that said they had a positive expectancy or they were profitable.
Yet, I'm smart enough to know that when someone state they use something else with their TA (e.g. money management, market structure or whatever)...doesn't make sense to tell that person that the TA doesn't not work is like saying that the TA is the only thing the trader is using...the latter a useless comment when the trader being told such is not using automation.
By the way, I've seen traders share the above specific details I mention on both sides of the coin (it works, it does not work). Some with negative expectancy and some with positive expectancy. The ironic aspect about backtesting...neither on both sides are able to get similar results in real money trading.
Therefore, if you still have your results and the settings you used for that stuff you said it did not work...post them here or post the info in one of the many of threads at this forum about the topic of backtesting.
Yet, anyone that tells you it works...you should be asking for the same info or even asking for simulator/real money trade results due to the fact most traders do not want to reveal the paremeters of their trade methods.
By the way, having these discussions in someone's trade journal (a journal that just started) is weird. Thus, if we waited a few months or year and the trade journal was still going...wouldn't it make sense to then have these discussions about if price moving averages worked or does not work ???
You made your comments that it does not work about one day after the trade journal started.
Yet, I'm curious, what would you say if he's profitable in his trade journal. Would you request he continue trading and posting his results for the next 10 years to qualify as long term to validate it works or what and what would you say if he tells you that TA is not the only thing he uses ???
wrbtrader
Last edited: