intermilan04:
 
Here are some possibilities:
 
1. Survivorship bias;
A lot of dips just dip down to 0, especially around 2001-2003.
 
2. Position sizing pitfalls:
If you position size is big compared to the daily volume, you will not be able to get the open price in real trading as in historical testing since you moving in/out of the market would affect the price itself. Limit to 0.5% of EMA(V,50). Don't use percentage of bar volume since you can not follow that in real trading. Also use volume and price filter to avoid illiquid stocks.
 
3. Test period consideration:
If the test period is too long, the capital would become too big to be realistic. Try to test year by year, this will give you a feel of CAR, though you may not get the real MDD if you do so.
 
4. Over-optimization:
Make sure the system is based on sound market observation and real possibility. Limit number of variables to below 5. Make the portfolio size sufficiently big.
 
Hope this helps a bit,
 
- Mark H.
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:27 PM
Subject: [amibroker] Re: Backtest vs Forwardtest

Hi Duke,

I have minimum price and volume to avoid penny stocks and
nobody-is-caring stocks...that's about it.

It could be that the way I designed my system might be picking
small-cap stocks over large ones more often, though. It is a long
system which tries to pick up in a dip.

intermilan04

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED]ps.com, "Lists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I will second Dingo's comments about sample size. However, the other
factors to consider (aong many) are what I call sample "segments." For
example if you have a size bias built into your screening process
there will be times when your system will produce above/below average
returns relative to longer historical averages. An example of that is
a system who results have been focused in the small cap space. We have
had 6+ straight years of small cap out-performance - a period that
coincides with your backtest period ( the last period was 1976-1982.)
You have now perhaps a transitory period where both volatility and
rotation is affecting your current results.
>
> Just something to ponder....
>
> Regards,
>
> Duke Jones, CMT
>
>
> > -------Original Message-------
> > From: dingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: RE: [amibroker] Re: Backtest vs Forwardtest
> > Sent: 30 Aug '06 19:37
> >
> > In most circles 5 years is not enough. Plus profits are not all
you should
> > be looking at imho. How about drawdowns? I get nausea just
typing that
> > word.
> >
> > If you have access to past emails on this list then you might
want to search
> > for "robust". There have been several nice exchanges on this
term - one
> > that your have just tripped over.
> >
> > d
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ps.com
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]ps.com] On Behalf Of intermilan04
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:37 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ps.com
> > > Subject: [amibroker] Re: Backtest vs Forwardtest
> > >
> > > Hi dingo,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your prompt reply.
> > >
> > > 75% is really good, if I can snatch it. Often times I see
> > > that number when I backtest, but it drops once I start
> > > following my system...
> > >
> > > The past results are indeed too good to be true but my system
> > > is not looking at future quotes. I guess it could be the
> > > curve-fitting problem though, if 5 years of data isn't enough.
> > >
> > > I had tried with longer data range but what happened was this
> > > system racked up 1900% and 3700% in 1999-2000 and 2000-2001,
> > > which skewed my average CAR...
> > >
> > > Are there ways to avoid the curve-fitting issue other than
> > > backtesting against longer data range?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > intermilan04
> > >
> > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED]ps.com, "dingo" <dingo@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And 75% isn't good enough for you?
> > > >
> > > > And don't you think the past results just might be too good
> > > to be true?
> > > >
> > > > And you checked your formula to see if it is looking into
> > > the future?
> > > >
> > > > And if it isn't then it just could be so optimized that it
> > > is "curve
> > > > fitting".
> > > >
> > > > And without your code its hard to pinpoint what's going on....
> > > >
> > > > d
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ps.com
> > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]ps.com] On Behalf Of intermilan04
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:11 PM
> > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ps.com
> > > > > Subject: [amibroker] Backtest vs Forwardtest
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm having a puzzling situation where my backtest results are
> > > > > fantastic yet my forwardtest result is nowhere near it.
> > > > >
> > > > > My system is optimized between 2001/1/1 and 2006/1/1.
> > > > > Results YTD is "forwardtest" since it is beyond the scope of
> > > > > optimized data range.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here are some numbers of backtests:
> > > > > Year-by-year-results (CAR)
> > > > > 2001/1/1-2002/1/1: 393.70%
> > > > > 2002/1/1-2003/1/1: 232.64%
> > > > > 2003/1/1-2004/1/1: 721.79%
> > > > > 2004/1/1-2005/1/1: 400.82%
> > > > > 2005/1/1-2006/1/1: 490.72%
> > > > >
> > > > > and at last--forwardtest
> > > > > 2006/1/1-2006/8/29: 74.64%
> > > > >
> > > > > I am at a loss to explain this. It's very sad that I
> > > work hard to
> > > > > come up with a system that has worked, only to see it not
working
> > > > > nearly as good as it should be.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any analysis/suggestions to fix the problem above is greatly
> > > > > appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > >
> > > > > intermilan04
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Please note that this group is for discussion between users
only.
> > > > >
> > > > > To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to
> > > > > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
> > > > >
> > > > > For other support material please check also:
> > > > > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > > > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/433 - Release
> > > > > Date: 8/30/2006
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please note that this group is for discussion between users only.
> > >
> > > To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly
> > > to SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
> > >
> > > For other support material please check also:
> > > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/433 - Release
> > > Date: 8/30/2006
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please note that this group is for discussion between users only.
> >
> > To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to
> > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
> >
> > For other support material please check also:
> > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

__._,_.___

Please note that this group is for discussion between users only.

To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to
SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com

For other support material please check also:
http://www.amibroker.com/support.html






SPONSORED LINKS
Software support Small business finance Business finance online
Business finance training Business finance course


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




__,_._,___

Reply via email to