In other words
In other words
No, they are not. It demones your egy/method has some defects. Likely the defects are constructed.Originally Posted by ;
Example: when I started trading back in 2010, I had been crazy enough to use a pure Martingale system. At some stage I risked $10k in order to bring in anything between $5 and $500 in a trade. It worked for nearly one year. What happened? Huge volatility in August 2011 killed my account. Since nobody can forecast the market volatility, then you are likely to kill your account with Martingale. Would any variant of Martingale survive the SNB crash in Jan 2015 and continue to give a profit, for example?
My advice: out of those backtests, take some of those unprofitable ones and analyze them, find the reason for the collapse. That will be the reason for the additional losses. Check if your rules could be fixed and/or accommodated.
You have to prove to yourself, through the backtest, that you have an edge. With no edge can you truly feel plogically secure to enter a string of trades ?
* string of trades: that's a terminology used by Mark Douglas, the author of Trading in the Zone. If you don't know him, take a look - you will find some of the seminars. By the way, he passed away...
I'm attempting to receive my head round the idea of why backtesting (I assume regardless of the egy as I tried 3 unique egies with the same outcome) doesn't do the job.
Here is the situation:Download historical data (regardless of the origin) as OHLC and it must be EOD data Write/program the code ( and no it is not MT4, it's Jave code. Do the backtest
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote