<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Forex Software — Stats for Sidekick-style trade filtering]]></title>
		<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/topic/8217/stats-for-sidekickstyle-trade-filtering/</link>
		<atom:link href="https://forexsb.com/forum/feed/rss/topic/8217/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<description><![CDATA[The most recent posts in Stats for Sidekick-style trade filtering.]]></description>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Feb 2020 09:41:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>PunBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Stats for Sidekick-style trade filtering]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/59177/#p59177</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Hi footon, </p><p>really great stuff. Thanks for sharing it.</p><p>About the consecutive win policy; I’ve told you so. ;-)<br />I’ve also played around for a year with it, I think it makes no real sense to use it.</p><p>First of all, as you already mentioned, profitable trades will be left out but you’ll most likely would have needed them to cover future losses. Therefore, your strategy would need a really high w/l ratio trying to cover this.<br />Additionally, you’d need a proper risk/reward ratio to limit the impact of losing trades.<br />All this combined is a really tough weight to carry and in the end it just isn’t worth it.</p><p>What you may also consider when you set a new strategy live, in general the best performance is achieved when it starts trading right after your sample size (for creation/optimization). If time goes by the performance usually drops, so you’d might lose the most profitable time of your strategy on top.</p><p>The only thing it might work here is for a strategy which is not really working on its own, then you might get lucky and achieve better result than then original strategy.<br />But I don’t know if that’s really a proper way to go.</p><p>The w/l ratio policy might be better, maybe you’d able to cut losses when the strategy performance starts to decline.<br />But I assume similar to the consecutive win example, this approach might work with poorly performing strategies better than which carefully selected ones.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (Lagoons)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 08 Feb 2020 09:41:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/59177/#p59177</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Stats for Sidekick-style trade filtering]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/59140/#p59140</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>A little update. There was another policy in the late Sidekick, which took into account the win/loss ratio for the last 10 trades and if it exceeded a set threshold, it would allow trades to be opened. I managed to incorporate that into Account Statistics as well. As the stat file is &quot;static&quot;, I made it to present 3 threshold levels (0.55, 0.65, 0.75).<br />For illustration purposes I have attached a round-up of the same strat following the same procedure (standard parameters, optimized for best W/L ratio, optimized for best net balance). I&#039;ll now include the file as well so everyone interested can have a look, make sure though you keep the copy of your current AccountStatistics file.</p><p>What I&#039;ve learnt so far: the consecutive win policy is rubbish. It is hard to make it work purely on a theoretical basis and the results show for themselves. It might work for a very specific type of strats on lowest TFs, but that&#039;s easier said than done. And as one would expect, it is a killer of trend-following strats.<br />Winrate policy is worth to be looked into a bit more. One thing though is certain - for an outright backtest performance nothing beats the original strat. But now the question is whether it is possible to eradicate more losses than wins with this policy. That&#039;s the only research angle I&#039;m contemplating at the moment.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (footon)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2020 13:47:42 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/59140/#p59140</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Stats for Sidekick-style trade filtering]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/59118/#p59118</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>I know I&#039;m years late to the party but finally I have arrived!</p><p>Back in the day when Steve introduced Sidekick I was quite curious of the actual performance. You know, it was mind tickling to read about different &quot;policies&quot;, which filter trades. But how to obtain the stats, which at least try to be intentionally meaningful? Demo trade? Ok, how about for 30k hourly bars? That&#039;s roughly 1250 trading days... Choosing that route I would be still playing on a demo. Resorting to accept stats for 2 weeks of demo would be moronic to say the least, just like backtesting strats over multiple platforms over the same set of data and expecting a significant raise in its future ability to generate profit. Better to stick to cold hard numbers.</p><p>I just finished introducing the consecutive win policy to FSB&#039;s account statistics. This is the first version, the most primitive one. Only thing to look at are balance numbers, which account all trades, which happen after 2 and 3 consecutive wins respectively.</p><p>I&#039;ll show the stats for a strat done on a 30k H1 bars. The sequence from left to right is initial strat, then the middle one is optimized for highest win/loss ratio, and the last one is optimized for highest net balance.</p><p>Doesn&#039;t look good for optimized versions. I think I&#039;ll go through many more and much different type of strats before I commit developing the policies further.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (footon)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:24:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/59118/#p59118</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
