What time period do you use to define a "consistent" trading strategy?

New comment
 
  • 57% (4)
  • 14% (1)
  • 0% (0)
  • 29% (2)
Total voters: 7
 

Everyone seems to use the word "consistent" differently. 

Some traders focus on daily or weekly performance, while others believe consistency can only be judged over annual or multi-year periods.

 
Why have to make a choice?
 
Gerard William G J B M Dinh Sy #:
Why have to make a choice?
Nice question. I will answer. To expose yourself to yourself.
In fact, If a strategy were consistently profitable every day, week, or month, a simple compound-interest calculation would lead to extraordinary growth over time.
That's why I believe the timeframe someone is using to define consistency matters. 
It reveals whether and on what prcent, users are evaluating performance realistically.
 

For me, I don't treat any one timeframe as unique. Each timeframe is a different sampling rate of the same price movement. Daily timeframe is best for consistency in my opinion. Weekly timeframe is essentially obsolete for intraday trading. But weekly and monthly timeframes have a purpose if you care about longterm holds and don't mind a constantly floating PnL.

You can bet that I don't gaze at a daily timeframe. I'll see D1 price action clearly on H1, then I'll see H1 price action clearly on M15.

 
I really like the idea that timeframes are just different sampling rates. It makes me wonder if the search for 'consistency' is actually just a search for a timeframe that happens to match our own patience levels. If the strategy works on D1, it should technically show up on H1, but the noise usually makes it harder to see. Great topic for discussion.
 
Expert Signal #:
I really like the idea that timeframes are just different sampling rates. It makes me wonder if the search for 'consistency' is actually just a search for a timeframe that happens to match our own patience levels. If the strategy works on D1, it should technically show up on H1, but the noise usually makes it harder to see. Great topic for discussion.
The higher timeframes have all noise hidden inside the current active candle. If you want precision in your entries, you have to understand the noise and see what's happening. If you want a longterm statistic and not precision, then you have to be immune to the noise.
 
Ioannis Christopoulos:
  • Daily
    67% (2)
  • Weekly
    0% (0)
  • Monthly
    0% (0)
  • Annually
    33% (1)
The answer is "ANNUALLY"
If we're talking about a trading strategy being genuinely consistent, then annually (or MULTIPLE YEARS) is the correct one.

Cuz

A few good days can be luck.
A few good weeks can be favorable market conditions.
A few good months can still be a market cycle.
A full year forces the strategy to survive bullish, bearish, ranging, high volatility, and low volatility environments.

For EAs specifically, I personally wouldn't call anything "consistent" until it has at least 6 - 12 months of verified live trading. Two or three profitable months means almost NOTHING.

A scam can survive for a weeks.

A lucky gambler can survive for a months.

A properly built trading system survives for years.

That's why I don't care about screenshots, backtests, or two months of profits.

Show me 12+ months of verified live results through good and bad market conditions. Then we'll talk about consistency. 👍💪📊
 
Conor Mcnamara #:
The higher timeframes have all noise hidden inside the current active candle. If you want precision in your entries, you have to understand the noise and see what's happening. If you want a longterm statistic and not precision, then you have to be immune to the noise.

Personally, I take the time out of the frame. I'm a big fan of Renko bricks, range bars, and equal tick volume bars. In all 3 of those custom chart structures (and more), time is largely irrelevant and noise is dramatically reduced.

New comment