Quote from inflector:
Anyone who says that testing using historical price data has no value is not thinking clearly.
How does one arrive at any strategy without knowledge of the past? How do you determine when to buy or sell?
What are the alternatives? Guessing?
All we have is what the markets have done so far. Even if we are trading live as a discretionary trader using only our personal experience as a guide for what to do in the future, we are relying on subjective back-testing.
It's not hard to argue that computers can more reliably test ideas using the same data. Backtesting works for the same reasons that smart traders can develop systems after years of experience in trading. They note repeating patterns that offer opportunities for profits. They then trade using ideas designed to capitalize on those opportunities.
You can do the same thing with a computer but with a more rigorous analysis. You will often find that ideas that appeared promising won't work because of something that you did not anticipate. It is much better to find this out using a computer than an actual account.
The reason that some people shy away from backtesting is that there are many ways to screw up backtesting and to find methods that appear to work that won't actually work in real markets. These problems are tractable if you pay attention to avoid the most common pitfall: over optimization.
Just because someone can use a knife to slit their wrists doesn't mean you don't want to use one in the kitchen when cooking. You just need to be careful with sharp instruments.
- Curtis

Quote from pairsarb:
Well, the markets won't let you trade historical data. So backtesting outcomes have little bearing on the present price, or for that matter, the next price.
There are geek suckers born every minute that will backtest for years, all the while avoid trading, searching for the Holy Grail. These types are generally risk averse, cause they rarely trade, and look for certainty.
I am sure I will get ragged on for saying so, but backtesting's benefit isn't in finding profitable systems (or avoiding unprofitable ones) as much as it teaches a trader to define his/her rules of trading in a systematic way.
Quote from bluedemon77:
I was very impressed with Van Tharp's book, but he kind of pooh-poohed the value of backtesting. I guess people assume that any system that backtested well will do well in the future and he wanted to destroy that illusion.
Quote from Holmes:
It is no suprise that 95% of the traders eventually blow up if I see the responses in this thread.
There is no substitue to understanding the markets and adjusting your play as the market unfolds. I have said it before and am saying it again: backtesting is based on the wrong premises. Yes with backtesting you may be able to define a mediocre system but that is all what it ever will be, mediocre.
It is like sitting at the poker table: if you do not know who the sucker is then you are the sucker. How are you going to "mechanically backtest" a poker game? 'nough said.
Old Chinese proverb: Those who say it cannot be done ought not to interrupt those who are doing it.
Holmes [/B]
Quote from Holmes:
It is no suprise that 95% of the traders eventually blow up if I see the responses in this thread.
There is no substitue to understanding the markets and adjusting your play as the market unfolds. I have said it before and am saying it again: backtesting is based on the wrong premises. Yes with backtesting you may be able to define a mediocre system but that is all what it ever will be, mediocre.
It is like sitting at the poker table: if you do not know who the sucker is then you are the sucker. How are you going to "mechanically backtest" a poker game? 'nough said.
Old Chinese proverb: Those who say it cannot be done ought not to interrupt those who are doing it.
Holmes