<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<title type="html"><![CDATA[Forex Software — New metric -- "Consistency"]]></title>
	<link rel="self" href="https://forexsb.com/forum/feed/atom/topic/6945/" />
	<updated>2017-09-23T14:27:12Z</updated>
	<generator>PunBB</generator>
	<id>https://forexsb.com/forum/topic/6945/new-metric-consistency/</id>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: New metric -- "Consistency"]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forexsb.com/forum/post/46602/#p46602" />
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>This works really well -- thank you, footon.</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[sleytus]]></name>
				<uri>https://forexsb.com/forum/user/9721/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2017-09-23T14:27:12Z</updated>
			<id>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/46602/#p46602</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: New metric -- "Consistency"]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forexsb.com/forum/post/46600/#p46600" />
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Learning the ropes, updated (optimized) version below.</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[footon]]></name>
				<uri>https://forexsb.com/forum/user/1242/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2017-09-23T10:05:18Z</updated>
			<id>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/46600/#p46600</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: New metric -- "Consistency"]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forexsb.com/forum/post/46592/#p46592" />
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Ah, footon -- I am in heaven.&nbsp; Thank you!!!</p><p>By the way, at first it didn&#039;t load.&nbsp; There is a checkbox under Control Panel / Custom Code called &#039;Load custom account statistics at startup&#039; that I had to check.</p><p>This is a super feature I didn&#039;t know about.&nbsp; So, now I can try-out new statistics if something interesting comes to mind.</p><p>Again -- thanks very much.</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[sleytus]]></name>
				<uri>https://forexsb.com/forum/user/9721/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2017-09-22T19:22:36Z</updated>
			<id>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/46592/#p46592</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: New metric -- "Consistency"]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forexsb.com/forum/post/46591/#p46591" />
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p><img src="https://forexsb.com/forum/img/smilies/smile.png" width="15" height="15" alt="smile" /></p><p>Try this, Steve!</p><p>Put it in <em>User Files\Code</em></p><p>EDIT:<br />New version below.</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[footon]]></name>
				<uri>https://forexsb.com/forum/user/1242/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2017-09-22T19:07:37Z</updated>
			<id>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/46591/#p46591</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: New metric -- "Consistency"]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forexsb.com/forum/post/46590/#p46590" />
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>No -- that is not correct.&nbsp; In your example the &#039;Max Stagnation&#039; would probably be large and since it is in the denominator, then it would probably overcome the value in the numerator.&nbsp; Also, since your strategy was good enough to make it into your portfolio in the first place, then it probably isn&#039;t so bad that it executes numerous losing trades in a row.&nbsp; However, I agree, there could be scenarios where this simple ratio might not apply.&nbsp; My intent was to point out that a couple of simple stats that we already have available may additional value when applied as a ratio.</p><p>&quot;Max stagnation” is defined as the number of consecutive days where the strategy has not made any profits.&nbsp; This could be due to not trading or to losing trades.</p><p>So -- if your strategy encounters a region of data that it is not well trained to survive, then it either will not trade or it will trade and lose.&nbsp; That could result in a larger &quot;Max stagnation&quot; value (and smaller Consistency metric).</p><p>It&#039;s the *ratio* of &#039;Execution Orders&#039; / &#039;Max stagnation&#039; that I am referring to.&nbsp; In my experience it sort of mirrors SQN.&nbsp; However, two strategies with similar SQN can often times be differentiated by having different &#039;Consistency&#039; factors.&nbsp; I would then choose the one with the higher Consistency factor.</p><p>In my earlier post I attached an image -- which helps you see what I mean.&nbsp; If you have a counter example, attaching an image would help me see what you mean.</p><p>Browse through some of your strategies in FSB and do a quick &#039;Consistency&#039; calculation in your head.&nbsp; I&#039;ll bet 25 cents that your better strategies have a larger Consistency factor.</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[sleytus]]></name>
				<uri>https://forexsb.com/forum/user/9721/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2017-09-22T18:58:46Z</updated>
			<id>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/46590/#p46590</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: New metric -- "Consistency"]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forexsb.com/forum/post/46589/#p46589" />
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Here is a scenario</p><p>If I have a breakout EA that does very badly in ranging times.&nbsp; It traded more frequently (i.e more executed trades that were bad trades due to false entries) as compared to another EA that executed lesser trades during ranging to avoid false entries.&nbsp; </p><p>If I were to use your calculation whereby Executed Trades/Max Stagnation, then it seem to me that the 1st EA that made lots of &quot;wrong&quot; trades is more consistent then the 2nd EA (which is better in handling ranging time by avoiding multiple error entries)?</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[hannahis]]></name>
				<uri>https://forexsb.com/forum/user/2809/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2017-09-22T17:02:54Z</updated>
			<id>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/46589/#p46589</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[New metric -- "Consistency"]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forexsb.com/forum/post/46588/#p46588" />
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>I would like to propose a new metric -- actually, it&#039;s a ratio of 2 older metrics:</p><p>Consistency = &quot;Executed orders&quot; / &quot;Max stagnation&quot;</p><p>The larger the ratio, the better -- I&#039;ll explain...</p><p>A large &#039;Max stagnation&#039; is bad -- since it indicates either (a) the strategy is not trading, or (b) it is losing.&nbsp; The number of &#039;Executed Orders&#039; is neither good or bad.&nbsp; However, the ratio of &#039;Executed orders&#039; / &#039;Max stagnation&#039; provides a glimpse into a strategy&#039;s trading behavior -- and I&#039;ll refer to that as &#039;Consistency&#039;.&nbsp; When comparing two strategies, the one with the larger &#039;Consistency&#039; metric does a better job of trading.</p><p>This metric is easy enough to estimate in your head when viewing each strategy&#039;s &#039;Account Statistics&#039;.&nbsp; If others find it valuable, then perhaps it could be promoted and a &#039;Consistency&#039; metric added to the list.&nbsp; </p><p>I&#039;ve attached an image to show what I mean.&nbsp; The strategy on the left has decent stats, but the Consistency metric is poor.&nbsp; This is due to the fact it trades poorly when the data is ranging.&nbsp; The strategy on the right has a good Consistency metric -- and you can see it trades well over the 3 types of data -- trend-up, trend-down and ranging.</p><br /><p><a href="https://postimg.org/image/x91zq1wjp/"><span class="postimg"><img src="https://s26.postimg.org/x91zq1wjp/consistency-metric.png" alt="https://s26.postimg.org/x91zq1wjp/consistency-metric.png" /></span></a></p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[sleytus]]></name>
				<uri>https://forexsb.com/forum/user/9721/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2017-09-22T16:42:05Z</updated>
			<id>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/46588/#p46588</id>
		</entry>
</feed>
