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.

jswanson

Double Seven Strategy

Recommended Posts

It's time to look at another simple trading system which can be found in the book, ”Short Term Trading Strategies That Work” by Larry Connors and Cesar Alvarez. In this article we are going to look at the Double 7 strategy. This is a simple strategy that can be applied to the major market indices such as DIA, DOW and QQQ. It can also be applied to the futures markets.

 

The rules of this system are very simple.

 

  • The instrument must be above its 200 day moving average.
  • If the instrument closes at a 7-day low - buy.
  • If a long position is open and the instrument closes at a 7-day high - sell.

The trading system follows two basic concepts we have talked a lot about on this website. Namely when trading the major market indices, like the S&P, an effective strategy is to buy pullbacks in a major up trend. This system does just that. The major up-trend is defined by price being above the 200-day moving average. A pull-back is defined as a close below the lowest-low over the past seven days. Once a trade is entered, we simply look for a new seven day high to exit. Super simple. Below is an example of some trades on the S&P Cash Index. Click the image for a larger view.

 

 

Double_Seven_Chart_Example-300x247.png

 

 

Looking at the trading rules, you will also notice it's a long-only system. Later in this article I will also reverse the rules and test it on the short-side. But for now, let's look at the performance for the long-only system. At this point I'm going to test it on the S&P cash index ($SPX.X for TradeStation).

 

Unless otherwise stated, all the tests performed in this article will be based on the following assumptions:

 

  • Starting account size of $100,000.
  • The number of shares traded will be based on volatility estimation and risking no more than $2,000 per trade.
  • Volatility is estimated with a five times 20-day ATR calculation. This is done to normalize the amount of risk per trade.
  • The P&L is not accumulated to the starting equity.
  • There are no deductions for commissions and slippage.
  • There are no stops.

 

Here is the position sizing formula used:

 

Shares=$2,000 per trade / ( 5 * ATR(20) * Big_Point_Value )

 

 

Long_Only_EQ_Curve.png

 

This looks very promising. Keep in mind, the system has no stops.

 

Is The 7-Day Optimized?

Let's look at changing the 7-day look-back period for two reasons. First, I would like to see if the default seven value is optimized. Secondly, I would like to know if other nearby values are used, would the system remain viable. In short, I would like to test the robustness of the look-back period. For example, if we change the 7-day low value to six, I don't want to see the system's equity curve drastically change. Likewise, if we increase the 7-day low value to eight, I don't want to see a drastic change in results. The neighboring values around seven should still produce positive results. In fact, it would be great to see the system remain profitable over a wide range of values.

 

I will use TradeStation's optimization feature to optimize the look-back period over the values 2-20 in increments of one. Keep in mind this single input value controls two look-back periods. The first is the entry look-back and the second is the exit look-back. As the trading system is defined, both these variables use the same value. The results of the test are in the graph below. You can click the image to see a larger view. The x-axis contains the look-back period while the y-axis contains the trading systems total P&L.

 

Long_Only_Lookback-300x243.png

 

This looks great. Any value you choose produces positive results. Each change in the look-back period also does not drastically change from neighboring values. The default value of seven is near the peek, which is six, but it's not the most optimal number. It's also important to keep in mind we will be using the default value of seven for other instruments as well and it's highly unlikely the bar graph for those instruments would look exactly like what we have here. In any event, I think this brings a lot of confidence to the look-back period.

 

 

Is The Regime Look-Back Optimized?

Just as we did for the look-back period for our entry trigger, let's perform the same type of test on the regime look-back period. Again, I will use TradeStation's optimization feature to optimize the look-back period over the values 20-200 in increments of ten. The results are in the graph below. You can click the image to see a larger view. The x-axis contains the look-back period while the y-axis contains the trading systems total return.

 

Long_Only_Regime_Lookback-300x241.png

 

This looks great as well. All values produce positive returns. In general, the longer the look-back period the more profit the system generates. While I did not study the numbers just beyond 200, I feel confident that a 200-period look-back is not optimized.

 

Taken both these tests we can feel confident that this system does not appear to be optimized and it's robust given a wide variety of input values.

 

 

Going Short

The original system is a long-only system. Let's try to use the current rules to short the market. We can do this by simply reversing the rules. In other words, we will modify the regime filter to only open trades when price is below the 200-day moving average. Trades will then open when price makes a new 7-day high and close when they make a new 7-day low.

 

  • The instrument must be below its 200 day moving average.
  • If the instrument closes at a 7-day high - sell short.
  • If a position is open and the instrument closes at a 7-day low - buy to cover.

 

I created a separate trading system to study only the short-side. The results of the system can be seen in the equity graph below.

 

Short_Only_EQ_Curve.png

 

This is not so great. Most of the time the equity curve is below the zero line. It's choppy and ugly. Clearly the market participants' psychology during a bear market is different than simply a mirror image of those found in a bull market. One would think shorting new highs in a bear is a good idea, and maybe it is, but this system is not successful at capturing profit. Taking a wild guess simply from past experience, I have found that exiting quickly during bear markets tends to work better than in bull markets. Thus, maybe a modification of the exit rules to only hold a trade until the first profitable day or only hold for a maximum of three days may produce significantly better results. However, such modifications are best left for another day.

 

To further test our shorting idea, let's now look at testing a range of look-back periods just like we did during our bull market. If our shorting concept is truly flawed, I would expect to see not much improvement in modification of our look-back period. In fact, since my wild guess is we need to exit quickly to remain profitable, I would expect to see greater losses as we continue to increase our look-back period. Likewise, I would expect to see greater profit as we shorten our look-back period. I will optimize the look-back period over the values 2-20 in increments of one. The results are in the graph below. You can click the image to see a larger view.

 

Short_Only_Lookback-300x241.png

 

Just as I expected. In general the shorter the look-back period, the more profitable. However, since this is our first look at the Double Seven Strategy, I don't want to over complicate it by introducing a shorting component. We'll keep it simple for now and apply our long-only strategy to several major market ETFs.

 

Double Seven Strategy

Confident the long-only trading rules are robust and appear to hold potential, let's now test this system on several major ETFs. Let's test, SPY, QQQ, DIA, and IWM. For this test we are going to use all the same trading assumptions and position sizing as we did above except for the following modifications.

 

  • $50,000 starting account
  • Risk 2% of account equity per trade
  • P&L is not reinvested

 

Double-Seven-ETF-Returns.png

 

Conclusion

The Double Seven Strategy does produce positive results across the four major market ETFs we tested. Is this system tradable with real money as is? Probably not. Remember, there are no stops. However, this does appear to be a great start to a viable system. I would imagine if some of the larger losing trades could be eliminated by some type of stop method, this system could be viable with real money.

 

Downloads

 

You can download the source code here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

additionally, what is the buy and hold return for the same period?

or what is the get set long only, and use a stop of 7 days below the entry, but not an exit above the entry....ie; you let things run once in an established position that trends.

 

Comparing these might give an insight into costs as well as risk return costs of purely day trading.

(Otherwise I am sure everyone appreciates the ideas jswanson - thanks)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
have to consider costs though..

 

I would if it was a trading system, but it's not a trading system. Note, it does not even have stops! What this article demonstrates is a potential market edge.

 

However for the sake of commissions and slippage, below are the SPY results of adding...

 

  1. 2% Stop Loss
  2. Deducting $20 + $.01 per share per round trip.

 

Net Profit: $33,232

Profit Factor: 1.96

Avg. Trade Net Profit: $216.37

Total Return: 33.32%

Annual Rate of Return: 1.50%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
additionally, what is the buy and hold return for the same period?

or what is the get set long only, and use a stop of 7 days below the entry, but not an exit above the entry....ie; you let things run once in an established position that trends.

 

Comparing these might give an insight into costs as well as risk return costs of purely day trading.

(Otherwise I am sure everyone appreciates the ideas jswanson - thanks)

 

Going back to the start of SPY (1993) a buy-and-hold strategy based upon the same risk position sizing would produce...

 

Net Profit: $165,933

Profit Factor: N/A

Avg. Trade Net Profit: $165,933

Total Return: 165%

Annual Rate of Return: 5.09%

 

Clearly much better results if you entered in 1993 and rode those bear markets where you will see 40% drawdowns. Also, dividends are not included.

 

Since the year 2000 things would look like this for the buy-and-hold:

 

Net Profit: $3,220

Profit Factor: N/A

Avg. Trade Net Profit: $3,220

Total Return: 3.2%

Annual Rate of Return: .24%

 

Since the year 2000 things look like this for the Double Seven

 

Net Profit: $13,732

Profit Factor: 1.49

Avg. Trade Net Profit: $140.12

Total Return: 13.7%

Annual Rate of Return: .96%

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

    • Nice way to start! Don't get used to it haha. Netted 2.28R. However, I made a mistake with my position size calculation and accidentally only entered at 91.4% of the size I intended, so based on the actual risk rather than the intended risk, this trade was about a 2.5R winner.
    • Potential EUR/JPY short
    • 27 IS NOT 10 27 More Hilarious Spelling Mistakes That People On Twitter Can’t Stop Making By Michael Koh, February 8th 2014   31.4k             I just can’t believe that these men and women do not use spell check on their phones. I mean, doesn’t it come pre-enabled? They must be pretty confident in their spelling abilities! Here’s more spelling mistakes on Twitter for your enjoyment. Read the original 27 post here. 1. “apidimi” This word is seriously the epitome of all that is wrong with not spell checking. 2. “…winey” Wait, when they’re saying “winey” voices, do they mean drunk voices? 3. “…go to collage” You can’t go to collage, you make ’em. 4. “…barley…” Barley is a great source of fiber, I think. Right? 5. “Aifel Tower” 6. “corn roads” I’m just shaking my head right now. 7. “I’m a genious” 8. “sillowet “ 9. “human bean” *bangs head on desk* 10. “fake an organism” 11. “mysery “ 12. “lewbuttons” 13. “klamidia” 14. “flaming young” 15. “seizure salad” 16. “quarterroys” 17. “alluminati” 18. “…dairy air” 19. “…aliterate” 20. “sellulite” 21. “masterbait” Goddamn, people, TMI. T.M.I. 22. “subliminol” 23. “dognuts” 24. “…raping presents…” 25. “ginger rale” 26. “kukies” 27. “alphet” They mean outfit. There, I saved you the trouble of trying to figure it out. image – Twitter   Funny Humor Informative List LMAO Spelling Mistakes The Digital Age The Internet Twitter    
    • This took the article right out of my idea. There's always someone quicker than you though. Dont forget to like and subscribe I know you cant get your replies in quick enough these days but keep trying. Scraping the hull: Ridding your organization of barnacles Award-winning author Gary Conner is president of Lean Enterprise Training. 5-6 minutes   Editor's Note: A version of this article previously appeared in the March 2004Lean Into It newsletter. What do barnacles and lean manufacturing have in common? Let me explain. Barnacles are a form of sea life that everyone's heard of but probably knows little about. Many different types exist, but let's talk about the type of barnacles that attach themselves to ships. These crustaceans are roughly the size of a quarter, and they attach themselves to a host (ship) for life. The adhesive properties of the cement that they excrete are amazing. This small animal glues itself to a host with a compound so strong that it could hold the weight of a compact car (2,500 pounds). Estimated costs associated with speed loss (caused by increased drag) and increased fuel consumption resulting from these marine mollusks' growth on ship hulls are an astronomical $1.4 billion per year. "Fouling," as it is referred to, can contribute to an increase in fuel consumption of up to 7 percent after only one month and 44 percent after six months (Swedish International Development Authority, 1986). For ships, the traditional remedy has been a regular visit to the dry dock. There, barnacles and other organisms are scraped or sandblasted off the hull, which is then covered with a coat of antifouling paint designed to discourage their return. As long as 2,000 years ago, hulls were sheathed with lead and smeared with concoctions of oil laced with sulfur and arsenic. In 1625 a lethal recipe combining arsenic, copper, and gunpowder was considered worthy of an English patent as an antifouling compound. The danger for shipping companies is that the barnacles are hidden below the water line. Out of sight, out of mind. The only indication that fouling has occurred is the vessel's reduced performance. Barnacles-Non-value-added Activities Parallel Could our companies be fouled—slowed down or consuming resources unnecessarily— by barnaclelike behaviors? How do we "scrape the hulls" of our organization to ensure smooth, unrestricted, and cost-efficient advancement? Barnacles can be likened to the non-value-added activities we perform every day. During a kaizen event at a client company in Nevada, we performed a value-added, non-value added (VA-NVA) observation of a sawing process. The operator was a large man (325-plus pounds). He was working in 95-degree-F heat and wearing a shop coat over his coveralls. This poor man was sweating profusely, to the degree that I was worried about his health. The initial observation showed that he was able to spend only 19 percent of his day in a value-adding mode. Eighty-one percent of his day was spent on either necessary non-value-added tasks (things like paperwork and stacking parts), or, worse yet, unnecessary non-value-added tasks (activities like looking for a supervisor or a pallet). After the kaizen team rearranged his work area, developed a new work standard, and set his operation up to run at takt time, this worker produced three times as many parts. He now spent well over 60 percent of his time in pure value-added activities (still room for improvement). At the time of our kaizen presentation, he was unaware that he was producing 200 percent more material through his two saws. Before we told him about the documented improvement, we asked him if the new layout and new work steps were easier or harder. He expressed a great deal of satisfaction with the new process, describing it as "so much easier than before." He was producing three times as much, with less effort. Kind of like pushing a ship through water with less effort because the barnacles had been scraped off. Nondiscriminating Suckers Organizational barnacles can grow anywhere. Engineering, order entry, purchasing, finance, and, of course, the production departments may need to be put into "dry-dock" and examined for non-value-added activities. A fabrication team VA-NVA examination found that 25 percent of its time was spent in non-value added activities. For this $14M company, this meant $3.5 million worth of potential sales opportunity was being left on the table each year. Interestingly, after a ship has had barnacles removed, the entire hull must be treated to inhibit barnacle regrowth. So it is with organizations; sustainment is by far the hardest part of improvement. Changing the behaviors of the individuals who comprise the organization is necessary to avoid reverting back to non-value-added activities. Continuous Improvement Kaizen must become a way of life, and one trip to the dry dock will not create a barnacle free ocean or organization. Continuous improvementis not just a program title, it is a verb, and verbs demand action. I'm sure that scraping barnacles off a ship isn't easy work, but the rewards of improved performance and reduced costs must be worth it, because every viable shipping company in the world does it. So, where will you start scraping?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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