
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Then why did you start this thread?
An example:
The above describes the way most people do.
The more "advanced" ones start still generating synthetics (and there are a lot of them) and run their TC on them. This is very resource-intensive, but also an option (own tester).
The alternative option implies quite a different approach. You think about what financial instrument must be, to make your TS work the way you want it to. After you have thought it over, you start thinking, how to create such synthetic instrument out of those FI which are available. Having created such a synthetic, you will perform the same optimization operations on us. The results of optimization, Out of Sample and all the other tricks aimed to get rid of the fitting will be better than those of the original instrumentation. What FI will you run your TC on?
It's like they created a TS for the pound, then matched it to the euro, the results were better and decided to run it on the euro pound in general, having previously matched it to the euro pound's history. Have you got it right?
Wrong.
Wrong.
The essence of the idea (as I understand it) is to isolate the logical synthesis block of a trading tool. In my opinion, it is a sensible idea. Respect.
.......
The alternative implies a very different approach. You think about what the financial tool should be to make your TS work the way you want it to. After you have thought it over, you start thinking about how to create such a synthetic from those FI that are available. Having created such a synthetic, you will perform the same optimization operations on us. The results of optimization, Out of Sample and all the other tricks designed to at least somehow get rid of the fitting will be better than on the original FI.
Again, the alternative you propose should imply an obvious stability of the synthetic's future behaviour relative to the shown history compared to the existing tools.
If we say that the pound may do something funny in the future via yen (GBPJPY), and therefore it is profitable, but risky to trade on it, then let us trade wheat via spot gold (synthetic), because the behavior of synthetic will be very stable.... The question is: Why the hell should synthetic be able to guarantee us such stability? Clearly, no one will guarantee anything to anyone..... And if synthetic does not guarantee us stability of its behavior in the future, why do we need it?
Yeah, I like it too. Now that would be a good idea to do something practical. It's not obvious that the result will be better than the traditional approach, but it's still a curious idea.
I posted an example of a dynamically changing synthetic in CodeBase (not advertising - for those who start accusing). There are a lot of variants.
It is a funny situation with martin - all sorts of tricks are invented to defeat EURUSD or GBPJPY. Why these pairs and not others? And after all, why not synthetics, of which there are far more "real" FI? And finally, why not at least answer yourself the question of what should be the optimal FI for trading this popular martin?
P.S. An example off-topic, but it also relates to the practical application of simple synthetics.
Common:
Alternative:
Any TS will (in theory) fail! Whether it is Martin or something else is irrelevant.
As long as you know the distributions of the non-trending movements of the financial instrument over 20 years. And this is easy to find out by analyzing the history. Then taking into account this distribution you can create a Martin that will not fail on these 20 years of history.
Do you have any results?