Sector Selection / IWM comparison, part 6

Part 1, without Billy's pivot help:
IWM 6.51%
XLU 0.91%
Difference -5.60%
Cumulative -5.60%

Part 2, with Billy's pivot help:
IWM -2.21%
XLK 0.00% (i.e. the trade never hit the stop loss and remained active)
Difference 2.21%
Cumulative -3.39%

Part 3, with Billy's pivot help:
IWM -1.79%
XLK 1.31%
Difference 3.10%
Cumulative -0.29%

Part 4, with Billy's pivot help:
IWM -2.11%
XLK 0.00% (i.e. the trade never hit the stop loss and remained active)
Difference 2.11%
Cumulative 1.82%

Part 5, with Billy's pivot help:
IWM -2.39%
XLK -2.00%
Difference 0.39%
Cumulative 2.21%

Part 6, with Billy's pivot help:
IWM -2.93%
XLK -0.20%
Difference 2.73%
Cumulative 4.94%

Pivot only cumulative (Part 2-5) 10.54%

The cumulative difference of all trades is now 4.94% in favor of sector selection.

The cumulative difference of all pivot trades (2-6) is now 10.54% in favor of sector selection.

The difference is starting to become statistically significant -- but this was in a-typical Robot conditions (i.e. a drawdown). We still need to see how it performs in typical conditions, and in short positions as well.

Tim

Since the IWM Robot is in cash, the sector selections are also in cash.

On an anecdotal level, the short sector during this decline would have been XLE, and I see that it did indeed have a significant drop.

But without a Robot signal, I plan to take no action on either XLK or XLE -- not even a squeeze play.

Tim

A possible squeeze play would be long XLK and short XLE, but hedging only really works in a sideways market. Such a play would doubtless lose money simply from the velocity of price movements.

I'll post again here when the IWM Robot gives a new signal. Until then... enjoy the vacation...