# Hold and Hope / APD for AI TQQQ SQQQ

This number for AI TQQQ SQQQ is shown as APD = 0.03 in the grid and Hold and Hope ratio = 0.034 in the detailed stats. For a strategy doing this well, it just seems… odd… to me that average profits per trade would only be ~3% of the average max adverse excursion per trade, since trades occur about once per day in that strategy. Is the number correct?

If I am interpreting it correctly, it means that on an average trade, the profit is 3.4% of the maximum adverse market move against the trade. For example, make a trade that is at one point during the day is down \$100 (thousand) and wind up positive \$3.4 (thousand) at the end of the day. The system is saying that is about how things are going on average for that strategy, proportionally anyway. Seems counter to what I have observed. Maybe I don’t understand it correctly. The tooltip help for hold and hope ratio on the stats page says sum all trade PL divided by sum all MAE dollars. I haven’t seen tool tip help for the APD column on the grid.

Other strategies with high C2 score have much higher ratios. For example “NQ Quickie” is at 1.745 Hold and Hope (APD). “The ACE” is at 0.90 Hold and Hope (APD). Even “AI TQQQ only” from the same trade leader is at 0.47, which is about 11 times more than “AI TQQQ SQQQ”.

Also, why is GardCap Discretionary ranked 3# by C2 score given its relatively low returns vs. the rest of the top tier?

Thanks for making C2. It is very high quality, and these questions or issues are extremely minor relative to all the great services and content on the site.

1 Like

I’m not exactly sure why you picked that column or what you are looking for but i can at least tell you this.

I haven’t seen tool tip help for the APD column on the grid.

the tool tip for apd is “APD compares average per trade profit to average per trade drawdown”

Thanks, looks like the tool tip was updated, although the numbers for AI TQQQ SQQQ still seem suspect. To answer your first sentence, the APD column is good for quickly summarizing how much pain the strategy puts subscribers through for a given amount of gain. I picked that description up from the forums, but I can’t find the post where it was originally stated.

2 Likes

For your question about GardCap discretionary, I would suspect that it is given such a high ranking because of it’s very low max drawdown. As of now, it seems that the strategy has had a maximum drawdown of only 3.5% since it’s inception. Most strategies have drawdowns significantly higher to achieve an annual return similar to this strategy.

1 Like

This might help everyone understand how the rankings work. These are the elements, in order of importance, that go into the ranking. Two things that are notable are age of strategy and leverage. I have used very low leverage. Of course, people are free to lever up as much as they desire to increase returns, and obviously risk of drawdown.

2 Likes