|
Quote: |
|
 |
|
|
Not sure why this thread was dug up, but since it was - your statement could not be more wrong. Just b/c something backtests well does NOT equate to a profitable system going FORWARD. Contrary to what you read in the books, backtesting may help (or could actually hurt) a possible new system but since it is based on purely historical data that means little when the future is unknown. There are plenty of possible systems out there that backtest well and perform poorly live and vice versa.
If it was this easy, we would all be multi-millionaires here.
I'm amazed at what I read sometimes...
 |
|
|
|
|
Trading is a game of probability and for sure nobody can predict the market with certainty. As you'd said future is unknown, therefore, trading with a system based on backtesting on historical data is better than trying to predict the market without any research.
I did not say backtesting well must equate to profitable trading going forward.
What I'd said was that if you've a good system based on backtesting and if you do not follow the rules religiously, your trading will probably not be profitable.
Please don't be amazed at what you'd read anytime because many traders succeeded in trading by many ways, As the saying goes, there are many ways to skin a cat.
Trading systems may be easy but many traders find it very difficult psychologically to follow the systems religiously. As such, not many traders will become multi-millionaires. Just like playing golf is physically easy, swing and hit but not many people can be like Tiger Woods because not many people are prepared pyschologically to train for it.