But what exactly about the wording do you now not agree? We discussed everything here in reasonable detail and you were very helpful and civil, what happened?
"I am looking at the other statistic definitions in the same area. No other statistic gyrates about being sensitive to the feelings of vendors"
We are not being sensitive to the feelings of vendors, we are trying to make the description of APD more accurate as the current wording and interpretation is too rigid and definitive, you yourself previously agreed you could see our point.
"I see no more reason to surgically alter APD then PF, Realism, Keep after WC Slippage or others."
We are not altering the way it is calculated, that should remain the same, we are merely proposing to alter the wording so that people can understand and interpret it better. Jules, myself, Gilbert and Beau so far have all agreed the new wording we suggested (and you helped provide) was better.
"Stats are for the subs, not for the vendors. A smart sub considers the stats as a whole, and makes an informed decision."
We all agree with that, but remember APD was created by you and adopted by Matthew, so no-one outside of C2 can possibly know what it means without reading the description. That’s where they first discover what it means and learn how to interpret it, and that’s what we’re addressing because the current description is inaccurate.
We’re not changing what it does or how it’s calculated, merely proposing that the text that pops up alongside it now has a more accurate and balanced description of how it can be interpreted. It will still include a description of how it can highlight systems that h&h and average down (which it currently implies is the ONLY way to interpret it), so it isn’t taking anything at all away from how you currently view it, but instead would now have some additional interpretations for people to consider. Is that really that unreasonable?
Yes we were detailed and civil. I read everything. I studied all the stats listed on the main page. I am getting tired of this drawn out surgical procedure to make everyone happy.
The simple facts are:
1) Other stats are generally not watering down its purpose by listing theoretical sub-cases where it might negatively impact vendors. APD is no more obligated than the others
2) All I see is based on rants and theories that somehow APD is patently unfair to certain systems. I have not seen any convincing evidence of serious unfairness to a significant number of currently active systems.
3) Neither have I seen that a number of people are avoiding certain systems because the APD was unfair to vendors. I see complaints, but they are generally unwarranted gripes from vendors with poor money management.
Regarding possible unfairness issues, either we update all stats or none.
I am repeating what I would like the description said. The best description would be to simply state what APD reflects, and how it might be used:
"Low APD means the sum of all maximum drawdowns per trade are very high compared to the sum of all net profits. This can reflect a system that averages down or "Hold&Hopes"
I said "can", not "does." That is very and quite sufficient, and fits with the other statistics definitions.
"The best description would be to simply state what APD reflects, and how it might be used:"
Agreed, and that’s exactly what we’ve come up with. Everyone else who’s commented so far thinks it’s better than the existing one.
As Jon said, APD exists only at C2. There are plenty of texts on the internet that explain other statistics like Sharpe. Such texts do not exist for APD. Therefore it should be given here. This might also be true for RF, but today we are discussing APD.
"I have not seen any convincing evidence of serious unfairness to a significant number of currently active systems"
I have not seen any evidence that APD is good at all. All I see is theory and opinion.
"…either we update all stats or none."
Updating the text of other stats is an option. Requiring this as a condition for improvement of the APD text is no more than an obstructive tactic, however. There is no law that says that all texts should be equally good or bad.
The formulation with "can" is better than with "does", but still too suggestive. Nobody reads these notes so carefully, unless they are already aware of this discussion.
now on a lighter note…
RE: Ulcer Index 0.8115
^^ ulcer index = the likelihood of getting an ulcer the longer one stays with the strategy, the closer the index gets to 1… ? 
" As Jon said, APD exists only at C2. "
The same is true for "Realism" or "Keep after Worst Slippage" as well as the guestimated commission deducted from the average trade and the hypothetical nature of autotrading in the real vs. hypothetical trade results. These ar e all C2 calculations.
Absolutely, and look how long the explanations are for those statistics, you would have thought ‘keep after worst case slippage’ was pretty self-explanatory but we get a very helpful description so we can understand what it’s doing and how to interpret it, the one for Realism is so long and detailed it links you to another page.
You previously agreed you could see our point, and now we’ve arrived at a solution to which so far everyone whose commented but you agrees is better you are suddenly resisting it using as examples other C2 statistics that go into greater detail than the current description for APD!!!
Hard to understand what or why you are still digging in your heels on this. I’m sorry you’ve suddenly changed tack but this has been a democratic process and we will continue to redefine and go on without you if necessary, we are trying to make this better, don’t understand why you can’t see that, if you can’t help anymore then get out of the way and let us carry on.
Jules Ellis, can you send me a private message with a contact to you?
