<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<title type="html"><![CDATA[Forex Software — In Sample + OOS vs 100% In Sample: misleading results from comparison!]]></title>
	<link rel="self" href="https://forexsb.com/forum/feed/atom/topic/9827/" />
	<updated>2024-09-02T12:00:08Z</updated>
	<generator>PunBB</generator>
	<id>https://forexsb.com/forum/topic/9827/in-sample-oos-vs-100-in-sample-misleading-results-from-comparison/</id>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[In Sample + OOS vs 100% In Sample: misleading results from comparison!]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forexsb.com/forum/post/81058/#p81058" />
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Dear Popov,<br />this happen always in my test.</p><p>By generating strategies with the following data:</p><p>TEST 1<br />4 weeks (but it could be another data period)<br />M15<br />OOS 50%<br />Method: SQN or Net Balance</p><p>the portfolio results are impressive for the OOS 2 weeks. The balance is growing and it seems to have find a profitable portfolio generation approach.</p><p>TEST 2<br />BUT, if you generate only in SAMPLE for the 2 weeks (no until today but let&#039; say until 2 weeks ago), the portfolio result is highly negative, compared to test 1.</p><p>Of course I&#039;ve used the sames acceptance criteria: Test 1 In Sample = Test 2 Complete Backtest.</p><p>Same weeks of course.</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[poteree]]></name>
				<uri>https://forexsb.com/forum/user/14942/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2024-09-02T12:00:08Z</updated>
			<id>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/81058/#p81058</id>
		</entry>
</feed>
