If I were swing trading, I let this puppy ride the wave down to around mid 60s.That's where my stop was!! grrrrrr
I got back in, though, so hopefully you're right!!
If I were swing trading, I let this puppy ride the wave down to around mid 60s.That's where my stop was!! grrrrrr
I got back in, though, so hopefully you're right!!
Time of day is a good one....but there are exceptions to this rule.....like Fed announcement days, etc.No stop. It's either BUY or SELL SHORT.
You're correct. Trading in the chop zone is the biggest contributor to losses. But then, I have yet to find a good method of telling the damn algo how to differentiate between trend vs chop--before it actually happens. If you do, please let me know.
Looking at your chart there were entries made at extremes of a bar.
Question: How many of your sell trades happened on top of bar and how many buys happened on lows of bars? What does system do if it can't entry at desired price?
I spent years with texting S&R methods, more trades means overall losses cause you need to use at least one to one and half ticks slippage then include commission, often leaves less than a tick of profit left and should a report come out or special news would hurt performance badly, but this is what I have tested, more is not better.
What is the result if you do the same test on other periods of data? The result should be more or less the same, if not your result is based on luck. You should test this on years of data.If, for example, 20 trades were executed using the 15-minute chart , 233-tick chart had 500 trades. But whereas the 15-minute only made $1,000 during x number of days, 233-tick made in excess of $25,000.
What is the result if you do the same test on other periods of data? The result should be more or less the same, if not your result is based on luck. You should test this on years of data.
Be careful with backtesting. I saw already backtests that made consistent and good profits by taking a few ticks each time. When they started to trade it in realtime they lost in a very short time (less than 1 hour) $900 per contract. These few ticks were supposed to be taken theoretically, but were not there in reality.
$25.000 in 500 trades means average 1 point profit per trade. That is dangerously close to zero. If you would make 2 or 3 points average, slippage or a small miscalculation would still keep you in profit. But profits of 1 point or less can quickly become losses in realtime trading.
Backtesting can sometimes create the illusion that you have a good system.
Exactly and all he needs to do is mine his backtested trades and determine what kind of filter will keep those trades from occurring.I spent years with texting S&R methods, more trades means overall losses cause you need to use at least one to one and half ticks slippage then include commission, often leaves less than a tick of profit left and should a report come out or special news would hurt performance badly, but this is what I have tested, more is not better.
Quite a lot actually. But then, it catches not only the absolute top and bottom but all the intermittent dips in the middle of the trend. I've yet to find a good cure to iron out the kink.
As far as slippage is concerned, when I ran the backtest I threw in $12.50 (1 tick) for slippage on every order filled. Since all my orders would be market order, I figure it would cost me 1-tick on each trade. The commission was also baked in. Even with the slippage and commission, the result was net positive. I ain't sure that answered your question. Let me know if I missed anything.
The beauty of automation is that every trade is executed without my presence. So the logic that dictated my thinking when I set out to devise my strategy is, if that is the case, then why not go for the strategy that would yield the largest net positive return. So I ran a bunch of backtests of the same strategy over many different timeframes. It turned out shorter timeframes gave higher net return (profit/loss plus commission and slippage). If, for example, 20 trades were executed using the 15-minute chart , 233-tick chart had 500 trades. But whereas the 15-minute only made $1,000 during x number of days, 233-tick made in excess of $25,000. The point I want to make is that the difference was rather huge between two timeframes. If the strategy is profitable, why not let it run on autopilot and allow it to generate the largest possible amount of money? So my thinking goes.
Some of the filters I use is blocks of trades, program sees what "normal" is of last ten minutes, then if blocks depending on overall volume, if it senses blocks coming in like HFT, it stops looking for signals. But when you rely on S&R, you are screwed. I would test on more of a longer term filter and trade with the trend, throw in swing average to start sensing when reversal point should come in to hunt for extremes and fail safe when price gone beyond extremes for hard trending. Most of my back testing for me has show reduction of trades and bottom line doesn't change much.Exactly and all he needs to do is mine his backtested trades and determine what kind of filter will keep those trades from occurring.
So his basic method is OK, all he needs now is a filter.