<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Forex Software — In Sample + OOS vs 100% In Sample: misleading results from comparison!]]></title>
		<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/topic/9827/in-sample-oos-vs-100-in-sample-misleading-results-from-comparison/</link>
		<atom:link href="https://forexsb.com/forum/feed/rss/topic/9827/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<description><![CDATA[The most recent posts in In Sample + OOS vs 100% In Sample: misleading results from comparison!.]]></description>
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2024 12:00:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>PunBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[In Sample + OOS vs 100% In Sample: misleading results from comparison!]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/81058/#p81058</link>
			<description><![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>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (poteree)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2024 12:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/81058/#p81058</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
