PF as stand-alone says nothing.
But show me a bad system at C2 with this values :
PF > 2 and APD > 1 and Trades > 10
pps: I filter systems using Predominantly MOO orders (greater than 95%) (independence); Realism Factor (greater than 80%) (honesty); reliable P/L per unit: (reliability); Max (true or realized or actual) DrawDown (less than 48%)(pride) and rank the resulting results by the Expectancy Score (highly correlated with Profit Factor)(objective to maximize returns) and then break a tie (less than 5% difference in ES) if any, by the Sharpe Ratio(integrity) which in my opinion is more than sufficient to filter out good systems.
Would like to see average normalized (via ATR, Average True Range) trade profit/loss and its corresponding t statistic and also the average profit displayed in a histogram form.
RT Hedge satisfied APD > 1 and Trades > 10 before the NFI trade where all the profits were lost. I don’t know what the PF was, but I think it was also good. My point is not that this particular system is a bad system though. My point is that this sequence of events can happen:
1) A system looks very good on the statistics in your criterion,
2) PF and APD change dramatically after one really bad trade,
3) after this the system doesn’t satisfy your criterion anymore, so I won’t find it when I try to find counterexamples for your claim.
If it is a bad system in stage 3 then it was also a bad system in stage 1, however. So the fact that systems that satisfy your criterion always look like good systems at that moment says little about the predictive value of this criterion. The true question is:
Show me a system that had PF > 2 and APD > 1 and Trades > 10 once upon a time, and that turned out to be a bad system eventually.
I think there are plenty of such systems, but I cannot find them because C2 shows only the current values of the statistics and not their historic values.
trades > 10 is not nearly sufficient to overcome luck. I like 4+ months, 30+ trades. THEN I follow it for at least a few weeks to see whether the good performance was due to chance (since people generally only notice the systems that rise to the top of the C2 heap) or whether it continues
I do not believe anyone should subscribe to any system without doing some analysis & checking to see if it is truly reasonable
"trades > 10 is not nearly sufficient to overcome luck. I like 4+ months, 30+ trades."
Indeed, PF and APD have little predictive value with only 10 trades. In addition, while these statistics may reveal some trading habits, I think they are unable to reveal some other trading habits, like taking a concentrated position, certainly if this happens only occassionally.
APD is really designed to show that someone tends to rack up large drawdowns (on average) for the profits obtained (like Big Cat’s 0.10). Onetime catastrophic events (like a huge drawdown while system owner is trying to average down to get it back to respectable) are really not going to be predicted by any statistic.
>I think there are plenty of such systems, but I cannot find them because C2 shows only the current values of the statistics and not their historic values.
True. One solution would be to enter these historical trades into a software program like, Market System Analyzer available at http://www.adaptrade.com/ and compute these statistics at any given point in time…
So, subscribers are not completely lost yet. As long as an individual is sane, he can choose to question and judge, or not to do so; if he judges, he has the capacity to reject what he hears from others. It does not take genius or even education to discover that other people, with their countless clashes, contradictions, and reversals, are not omniscient (though Ross thinks he is). In particular, a man can recognize the arbitrary (though Ross is unable to do so), even if he does not know the truth. He can recognize that "Accept it because we (C2 or Ross) say so" is no answer, even if he does not know the answer; and he can resolve to look for answers elsewhere and to keep looking. A group (advocates of a stolen or false concept) can make a man miserable, at least for a while. It cannot make him anti-effort.
ps: Because man is a volitional being, his cognitive faculty is free in relation to others. No matter what they think, do, teach or evade, his mind remains his alone to use and direct. A "reason" detached from reality, with no special allegiance to that which is, "impartial" and "unbiased" as between reality and unreality, would not be a cognitive faculty…
A group (advocates of a stolen or false concept) can make a man miserable, at least for a while. It cannot make him anti-effort.
Yet another example of a generalization from Palsun that is as inaccurate as it is devoid of content. There are plenty of men who have "given up" as a result of group pressure… more so than those who have persevered despite the negative feedback. Likewise, there are plenty of men who persevered when they should have given up. Small business failure statistics affirm my statement.
pps: Just as others (eg., a group) can make a man’s cognitive task easier, so they can make it more difficult. They can enlighten a man with true ideas and proper guidance - or confuse him with falsehoods and dead ends. But just as the first circumstance does not turn the mind into a social product, neither does the second. The first does not make a man think. The second does not make him stop thinking.
> As long as an individual is sane…
What would you think of a man who quotes Ayn Rand about personal responsibility, yet attributes all his losing systems to another man’s name?
I would immediately suspect him of being from the Palsun Anand philosophy camp, and disregard much of what he says.
Good question. Such a system is borderline. Since it has some significant similarities to consistent, highly profitable, unoptimized systems, one may choose to subsume it under that concept, provided it has met other suitable criteria (e.g., the filter I described).
I think this is what is called “Pal Logic.” Pick arbitrary values and assign some bizarre value. It would be nice if there was ANY kind of proof for this assertion, but it never seems to come…
And PF over 1 is profitable? Would ANYONE trade a system with PF of 1.03???
Most people would be happy with a PF over 3. Since C2 tracks these systems, it seems hard to see why it is automatically "highly optimized."
And why can’t a system of 1.7 be highly optimized???
In fact, it seems VERY strange to believe that - if C2 posts a PF of >3 that this system is highly optimized and therefore suspicious. Because C2 is based on trades that have actually been (virtually) put without having the benefit of hindsight.
For C2, it does not matter if a system is highly optimized or not, since it only cares about the results.
Translation for the masses:
so, subscribers is not completely lost yet. as long as an main man is sane, he can choose to question and judge, or not to do so; if he judges, he as da capacity to reject wot he ears from udders. it does not take genius or evun education to cukabillyva dat udda people, wiv their countless clashes, contradictions, and reversals, is not omniscient (though ross thinks he is). in particular, a geeza can recognize da arbitrary (though ross is unable to do so), evun if he does not know da truf. he can recognize dat "accept it coz we (c2 or ross) say so" is no answa, evun if he does not know da answa; and he can resolve to check fa answers elsewhere and to keep checkin. a group (advocates of a stolun or false concept) can make a geeza miserable, at least fa a while. it cannot make im anti-effort. ps: coz geeza is a volitional bein, is cognitive faculty is free in relation to udders. no matta wot dey think, do, teach or evade, is mind remains is alone to use and direct. a "reason" detached from reality, wiv no special allegiance to dat which is, "impartial" and "unbiased" as betweun reality and unreality, would not be a cognitive faculty…
Translation courtesy of http://www.mackers.com/alig/
Translation courtesy of http://www.mackers.com/alig/
lol I think I don’t need the translator, because I’m already speaking in the simplified/ugly English. But reading Pal’s posts might require the translation lol
Eu
"lol i think i don’t need da translata, coz me is already natterin in da simplified/ugly english. but readin pal’s posts might require da translation lol "
Translation courtesy of http://www.mackers.com/alig/
Sounds not easy
:-))))) Your Pal imitation becomes better with the hour. Did you just randomize the phrases of a few of his posts and then threw it through the translator?
I wonder whether Pal ever reads what he writes. (after all, we have to)
