Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

BlueHorseshoe

The Non-Optimisation Myth

Recommended Posts

Everything you do can be considered optimization one way or the other. The important question is whether the optimization process results in different system dynamics when it varies the parameters. Different dynamics can be assessed by different trade distributions. In that case the system is data-mining and it is subject to data-mining bias, i.e. the uncovering of spurious hypotheses. So this should be a criterion. If this criterion holds then you should take the final system and see if it performs well in several unrelated markets. If it does not, you have wasted you time and possibly money. The following posts in price action blog provide some good initial background but I think one must go even further than that:

 

Curve-fitting and Optimization | Price Action Lab Blog

 

Fooled by Randomness Through Selection Bias | Price Action Lab Blog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I second your recommendation to study what Michal Harris of Price Action Lab's has disclosed. Everyone (serious) like all of you posting to this thread, should understand the advantages and disadvantes of artificial intelligence. Some of you should specialize in it and take it beyond where it is, to something that can benefit us as a species.

 

Everything you do can be considered optimization one way or the other. The important question is whether the optimization process results in different system dynamics when it varies the parameters. Different dynamics can be assessed by different trade distributions. In that case the system is data-mining and it is subject to data-mining bias, i.e. the uncovering of spurious hypotheses. So this should be a criterion. If this criterion holds then you should take the final system and see if it performs well in several unrelated markets. If it does not, you have wasted you time and possibly money. The following posts in price action blog provide some good initial background but I think one must go even further than that:

 

Curve-fitting and Optimization | Price Action Lab Blog

 

Fooled by Randomness Through Selection Bias | Price Action Lab Blog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had read the Price action Blog previously and it is definitely highly recommended.

One of his conclusions sums it up nicely for the Q of this thread.....

 

"As a conclusion we can state that the issue is not whether a system is optimized, because all systems are in one way or another, but to what degree optimization impacts the probability that the system will fail in the future due to its nature."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For my own 'optimizationing' of the types of systems being discussed in this thread , I would amend

"As a conclusion we can state that the issue is not whether a system is optimized, because all systems are in one way or another, but to what degree optimization impacts the probability that the system will fail in the future due to its nature."

 

to

 

"As a conclusion ...the issue is not whether a system is optimized, because all systems are in one way or another, but to what degree optimization impacts the probability that the system will degrade in the future due to its nature."

 

ie...to "failure" is too kiss... if the parameters are optimizable for a system, get busy on them to the left or the right as soon as it degrades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For my own 'optimizationing' of the types of systems being discussed in this thread , I would amend

"As a conclusion we can state that the issue is not whether a system is optimized, because all systems are in one way or another, but to what degree optimization impacts the probability that the system will fail in the future due to its nature."

 

to

 

"As a conclusion ...the issue is not whether a system is optimized, because all systems are in one way or another, but to what degree optimization impacts the probability that the system will degrade in the future due to its nature."

 

ie...to "failure" is too kiss... if the parameters are optimizable for a system, get busy on them to the left or the right as soon as it degrades

 

Good suggestion. It is important to always be alert to prevent failure by constantly analyzing and upgrading systems. It is a horrible mistake to assume that a system should not be changed after it is deployed.

 

This is another good one by Harris where he argues that certain types of exits, like trailing stops, may produce curve-fitted systems:

 

Trailing Stops and Curve-Fitting in Trading System Development | Price Action Lab Blog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thx Equtrader...

 

One reason that I do not use this type of stop when developing trading systems and in algorithms I have developed for machine design of trading systems is that it renders the entry signals irrelevant in most cases. However, the robustness of the entry signals and their predictive ability under the majority of possible market conditions is what secures longer-term positive performance for trading system. Trailing stops can be used during actual trading to enhance profits and cut losses. One way to check whether signals generated by a trading system have predictive ability is to set a small percent or dollar stop. If the profit factor when the stops are set like that is not sufficiently high, you are probably dealing with a random entry generator.

The risk of curve-fitting is also high when using indicators to exit signals although entry signals may not be rendered irrelevant. But this is an even more interesting and complex case that will be the subject of another post.

from the closing of the article you cited

 

Haven’t posted these particular yada yadas in a while so…

>It is ALWAYS a “3 body problem” (anecdotally borrowing the phrase to illustrate the integral interplay, not same as it’s used in real physics, btw) ---

entry, exit, stop – never isolated

"optimized" close to, but not at, optimal - all at once…

 

>In system and automation design, any tweak is actually not a tweak, it is a whole distinct new system

 

If he persists, I predict before he’s done he will

1) retract that across the board “the robustness of the entry signals and their predictive ability under the majority of possible market conditions is what secures longer-term positive performance for trading system”

You can make such generalities about certain types of systems, but you can’t make such generalities about all systems… ie that is a good generality for systems exploiting limit cycles / oscillations of markets. It is not a good generality for systems exploiting ‘trend’ where “entry signals [can be rendered more] irrelevant” and

2) he will also conclude that “using indicators to exit” really isn’t an “even more and complex case” ...

 

Not a criticism at all… I periodically check in with this blog, learn a lot, and admire his development

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Be careful who you blame.   I can tell you one thing for sure.   Effective traders don’t blame others when things start to go wrong.   You can hang onto your tendency to play the victim, or the martyr… but if you want to achieve in trading, you have to be prepared to take responsibility.   People assign reasons to outcomes, whether based on internal or external factors.   When traders face losses, it's common for them to blame bad luck, poor advice, or other external factors, rather than reflecting on their own personal attributes like arrogance, fear, or greed.   This is a challenging lesson to grasp in your trading journey, but one that holds immense value.   This is called attribution theory. Taking responsibility for your actions is the key to improving your trading skills. Pause and ask yourself - What role did I play in my financial decisions?   After all, you were the one who listened to that source, and decided to act on that trade based on the rumour. Attributing results solely to external circumstances is what is known as having an ‘external locus of control’.   It's a concept coined by psychologist Julian Rotter in 1954. A trader with an external locus of control might say, "I made a profit because the markets are currently favourable."   Instead, strive to develop an "internal locus of control" and take ownership of your actions.   Assume that all trading results are within your realm of responsibility and actively seek ways to improve your own behaviour.   This is the fastest route to enhancing your trading abilities. A trader with an internal locus of control might proudly state, "My equity curve is rising because I am a disciplined trader who faithfully follows my trading plan." Author: Louise Bedford Source: https://www.tradinggame.com.au/
    • SELF IMPROVEMENT.   The whole self-help industry began when Dale Carnegie published How to Win Friends and Influence People in 1936. Then came other classics like Think And Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill, Awaken the Giant Within by Tony Robbins toward the end of the century.   Today, teaching people how to improve themselves is a business. A pure ruthless business where some people sell utter bullshit.   There are broke Instagrammers and YouTubers with literally no solid background teaching men how to be attractive to women, how to begin a start-up, how to become successful — most of these guys speaking nothing more than hollow motivational words and cliche stuff. They waste your time. Some of these people who present themselves as hugely successful also give talks and write books.   There are so many books on financial advice, self-improvement, love, etc and some people actually try to read them. They are a waste of time, mostly.   When you start reading a dozen books on finance you realize that they all say the same stuff.   You are not going to live forever in the learning phase. Don't procrastinate by reading bull-shit or the same good knowledge in 10 books. What we ought to do is choose wisely.   Yes. A good book can change your life, given you do what it asks you to do.   All the books I have named up to now are worthy of reading. Tim Ferriss, Simon Sinek, Robert Greene — these guys are worthy of reading. These guys teach what others don't. Their books are unique and actually, come from relevant and successful people.   When Richard Branson writes a book about entrepreneurship, go read it. Every line in that book is said by one of the greatest entrepreneurs of our time.   When a Chinese millionaire( he claims to be) Youtuber who releases a video titled “Why reading books keeps you broke” and a year later another one “My recommendation of books for grand success” you should be wise to tell him to jump from Victoria Falls.   These self-improvement gurus sell you delusions.   They say they have those little tricks that only they know that if you use, everything in your life will be perfect. Those little tricks. We are just “making of a to-do-list before sleeping” away from becoming the next Bill Gates.   There are no little tricks.   There is no success-mantra.   Self-improvement is a trap for 99% of the people. You can't do that unless you are very, very strong.   If you are looking for easy ways, you will only keep wasting your time forgetting that your time on this planet is limited, as alive humans that is.   Also, I feel that people who claim to read like a book a day or promote it are idiots. You retain nothing. When you do read a good book, you read slow, sometimes a whole paragraph, again and again, dwelling on it, trying to internalize its knowledge. You try to understand. You think. It takes time.   It's better to read a good book 10 times than 1000 stupid ones.   So be choosy. Read from the guys who actually know something, not some wannabe ‘influencers’.   Edit: Think And Grow Rich was written as a result of a project assigned to Napoleon Hill by Andrew Carnegie(the 2nd richest man in recent history). He was asked to study the most successful people on the planet and document which characteristics made them great. He did extensive work in studying hundreds of the most successful people of that time. The result was that little book.   Nowadays some people just study Instagram algorithms and think of themselves as a Dale Carnegie or Anthony Robbins. By Nupur Nishant, Quora Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/    
    • there is no avoiding loses to be honest, its just how the market is. you win some and hopefully more, but u do lose some. 
    • $CSCO Cisco Systems stock, nice top of range breakout, from Stocks to Watch at https://stockconsultant.com/?CSCOSEPN Septerna stock watch for a bottom breakout, good upside price gap
    • $CSCO Cisco Systems stock, nice top of range breakout, from Stocks to Watch at https://stockconsultant.com/?CSCOSEPN Septerna stock watch for a bottom breakout, good upside price gap
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.