My system CLAlwaysIn uses 24 patterns for its trading decisions ... those trade decisions are only taken at every trend-change (signaled by my PA-based trend-indicator).
The current (and all prior versions) of the system, uses a fixed-priority scheme amongst the 24 patterns, and selects the matching pattern of highest priority.
This gave a very high performance level in-sample, with an out-of sample performance about 65% of that on the 1st half 2013.
I have tested a weighted approach, where each applicable pattern's score is added (*), and the trading decision is based on the cumulative score. The in-sample performance is about 12% less, but the out-of sample performance on the 1st half of 2013 is virtually identical (using avg/trade as performance metric).
(in sample is about 5400 trades, out-of-sample 1st half 2013 is roughly 300 trades).
Interestingly, the out-of-sample performance of the weighted approach is much better than of the fixed-priority one (about +35% on the avg/trade).
I am tempted to believe that the weighted approach is much less "over-fitted" than fixed-priority one ... comments welcome.
Thanks in advance
(*) a positive score for a pattern indicates statistical follow-through (opportunity to go with the signal), a negative score indicates statistical chop (opportunity to fade the signal).
The current (and all prior versions) of the system, uses a fixed-priority scheme amongst the 24 patterns, and selects the matching pattern of highest priority.
This gave a very high performance level in-sample, with an out-of sample performance about 65% of that on the 1st half 2013.
I have tested a weighted approach, where each applicable pattern's score is added (*), and the trading decision is based on the cumulative score. The in-sample performance is about 12% less, but the out-of sample performance on the 1st half of 2013 is virtually identical (using avg/trade as performance metric).
(in sample is about 5400 trades, out-of-sample 1st half 2013 is roughly 300 trades).
Interestingly, the out-of-sample performance of the weighted approach is much better than of the fixed-priority one (about +35% on the avg/trade).
I am tempted to believe that the weighted approach is much less "over-fitted" than fixed-priority one ... comments welcome.
Thanks in advance
(*) a positive score for a pattern indicates statistical follow-through (opportunity to go with the signal), a negative score indicates statistical chop (opportunity to fade the signal).
