Pascal and Billy,
I would be VERY interested to understand how the trading patterns of 2011 differ statistically from those of 2008. Without any analysis to back this up, my gut feel says the markets were extremely chaotic back then just as they are now. How did the Robots react to price discovery back then and why?
For what it is worth -- I totally agree with you Billy. This is no robot time or even (swing)trading time. Wait on the sideline with a Margarita is the best we can do.
My signal to re-enter is a hourly VIX in a down trend. You will see the vix starting to make lower hourly highs (over the coarse of several days!!!), that for me is the signal to seriously start looking for a long entry and for short vega trades.
Anything till then is done in small size with the mindset of a day trader.
Adam,Originally Posted by adam ali
This is at the source of the statistical reliability problem. The 20 DMF was in confirmed shorting mode during all of September 2008 and had its first market direction signal change with a cover your short/buy signal on October 10, 2008. The robot did manage the trade well because it was looking for short positions durring all of that time Currently, the 20 DMF is already in unprecedented oversold territory and waiting for a long signal. Under such circumstances, the robot decides independently of the 20 DMF, and based on ST/LT statistics, whether to go long or short. But because the database only has a very few ST/LT combinations similar to today's, this is the exception to the rule that should be applied instead.
We are also in a typical volatility expansion environment that can quickly lead to 5-6% daily intraday moves for IWM. Because the robot is an EOD system and the risk management is based on a rising but lagging ATR% of +/-3% daily volatility, any setup coul actually proved to be a winner EOD but would probably be stopped out many times during the day.
Billy
billy
could the Robot be adjusted further to include day trading setups, I mean, the wild swings in this market is a day trader dream (60+ points) ?, or is it just designed with EOD data only and is not capable of intra daily data ??.
thank you
Hmatar,
Experienced discretionary day traders are the only ones who can expect to make a good performance and they are the only ones who should be hyperactive instead. I confess that I will try to be in that camp too.
An intraday robot can only be developped with the availibilty of a real-time 20 DMF which is still under development. It is an extraordinary technical challenge to finalize due to the millions of data to process and repeat every minute.
Billiy
thank you billy, looking forward already for intraday Robot, hope you guys can handle the ton of data and able to produce such a gold mine...good luck
Billy and Pascal,
Back in fall of 2008, the 20DMF issued a sell signal. Am I correct in understanding that signal didn't require confirmation from the inverse ETFs, which only came into play when the Fed entered the market through its POMO?
Also, in October 2008, the 20DMF gave a buy signal. In between the time it was short and then long, did the 20DMF fall into the pattern we're experiencing today, i.e., deeply oversold but not yet in buy mode? In other words, was it in cash?
If so, then the Robot backtest would have the Robot seeking a trade based solely on the LT/ST stats. Are those stats quite different than what we're seeing today? Did the Robots seek trades then or was it in cash?
I do understand and agree that relying on relatively few data points to trade the Robot makes no sense. My questions are more to gain a greater perspective on the contrast between 2008 and now in terms of the EV system.
Adam, Pascal may correct me if I'm wrong, but from my backtesting files, the short signal in September2008 was
confirmed very early by the TEV extension of the inversed ETFs even without POMO back then. Thereafter, until October 2008, all ST/LT settings have been SHORT and STRONG SHORT, never NEUTRAL and even less LONG NEUTRAL like today.
There is absolutely nothing comparable between the 20DMF signals and LT/ST settings in September 2008 and today. We can therefore legitimately expect that the outcome could also be very different than 2008.
Billy
Billy, I'm copying my recent comment to the analogy made by Ivan Hoff on another thread:
The rather simple-minded observation I have (admittedly, in complete hindsight) is that if the robot didn't include the ETF confirmation criterion (in its specific incarnation), we would be now in a rather impressive short swing trade and AFAICT a manual override into cash wouldn't happen, is that correct? If that is indeed the case, wouldn't you be inclined to think that the ETF confirmation is an over-optimized component of the robot? Would it make sense to go back and reduce the number of parameters tweaked in the robot setup to achieve greater consistency at the likely expense of lower overall return?
Trader D
It is true that not including the confirmation would have made a killing in the recent series of trade, but would have significantly deteriorated the robot performance in previous series of trades. It is only in hindsight that Pascal could make the discovery that confirmation improved performance during POMO periods but hindered it out of POMO periods. This information is obviously now seriously considered for inclusion in the robot rules and very likely will be in the future.
A manual override in cash would have happened anyway for new entries and the robot would already have covered its initial short position.
Now, let me kindly notice that if we change the rules after each losing trade, the robot will lose its objectivity and utility. Pascal is running new mixes of rules in backtests 24/24 with the latest observations mixes since a few days now to make sure of optimal necessary rules adaptations.
Billy
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote