Thanks, Billy, for the great feedback.
I'm no statistician but I do wonder at what point we can truly test a sufficient number of scenarios that we feel comfortable dipping our toe in the water again. Without sounding melodramatic, I think it's fair for me to be concerned that a similar situation to what just occurred (i.e., a 20DMF signal overridden with the outcome being a series of Robot trades that were stopped out), could happen again. In other words, not knowing what I don't know is an uncomfortable position to be in, and I don't know what other series of events could result in the EV system encountering another unknown, so to speak.
In hindsight, I wish I had raised the issue of the 20DMF moving below the 0% line forcefully. However, would that truly have changed anything in terms of your and Pascal's response? I'm not trying to be cheeky, here; I'm merely trying to ascertain whether poking and prodding on my (and everyone's) part is helpful to the goal of improving the system.
It's a difficult problem: we want to trade with statistical probabilities on our side, but at the same time, do we have a sufficiently robust sample set to truly feel comfortable we "have the bases covered"?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by adam ali
