<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<title type="html"><![CDATA[Forex Software — OOS Acceptance Criteria: Interesting Phemonima]]></title>
	<link rel="self" href="https://forexsb.com/forum/feed/atom/topic/6848/" />
	<updated>2017-08-21T22:07:09Z</updated>
	<generator>PunBB</generator>
	<id>https://forexsb.com/forum/topic/6848/oos-acceptance-criteria-interesting-phemonima/</id>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: OOS Acceptance Criteria: Interesting Phemonima]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forexsb.com/forum/post/45771/#p45771" />
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>The generation was over the same number of bars (all generation occurs on the IS, whether or not you have an OOS element) and over exactly the same data. &quot;Generated Strategies&quot; is the first step in the process...Every time the generator finds a strategy with positive profit (I assume), it is checked against Acceptance Criteria. I am speaking of the number of strategies generated even before checking against Acceptance Criteria. </p><p>The &quot;Generated Strategies&quot; of the IS/OOS generation numbered more than ten times the number of those generated by the exclusively IS generation; therefor, it had a lot more strategies to check against the Acceptance Criteria.</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[qattack]]></name>
				<uri>https://forexsb.com/forum/user/9968/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2017-08-21T22:07:09Z</updated>
			<id>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/45771/#p45771</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: OOS Acceptance Criteria: Interesting Phemonima]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forexsb.com/forum/post/45767/#p45767" />
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>My bet would be that on less data bars it is easier to find strategies what pass your acceptance criteria. Maybe during longer data period market had changed from ranging/trending, and it is a lot harder to get good looking strategies</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[Irmantas]]></name>
				<uri>https://forexsb.com/forum/user/9091/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2017-08-21T18:46:11Z</updated>
			<id>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/45767/#p45767</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[OOS Acceptance Criteria: Interesting Phemonima]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forexsb.com/forum/post/45762/#p45762" />
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>I woke up this morning and compared generations of IS vs. IS &amp; OOS generation and validation (optimization + 100 MC tests).</p><p>I&#039;m using identical IS periods, with the addition of a 30% OOS period in one of them (added on after the IS period of the first, making the total data 22500 bars instead of 15750 bars).</p><p>Acceptance Criteria and validation methods are identical for both IS and OOS.</p><p>Upon examination of multiple instances, I noted that the exclusively IS generations had generated about 60,000 strategies each.</p><p>I was surprised to see that the combination IS/OOS generations had generated in excess of 600,000 strategies during the same generation period.</p><p>For a few minutes, I thought that maybe my settings were wrong somewhere or that this was a bug in the new backtesting engine...but no, I realized that these results are correct and why they occurred.</p><p>Quiz: Can anyone explain the reason this happened?</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[qattack]]></name>
				<uri>https://forexsb.com/forum/user/9968/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2017-08-21T15:54:04Z</updated>
			<id>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/45762/#p45762</id>
		</entry>
</feed>
