LinusP wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 9:05 pm
You have put up a few graphs but to me these are meaningless without knowing at high level what the strategy is doing, it looks like you are just overfitting.
Something I like to do is pick a variable / trigger which I
believe to indicate predicted movement or the chance of wining and then graph it against the profit (variable on x axis). This quickly shows if there is a relationship and if my hypothesis has legs, if not rinse and repeat.
Oh yes, I'm absolutely aware they're overfit - hence why I'm extremely cautious, & also hope to be a good example for some people that a solid looking equity curve cannot be called an edge.
But I'm coming at the problem from the perspective of an early Peter.
For example, if I don't know what a Maiden is, I can't build a hypothesis around how "I think" a Maiden should behave. Excel doesn't know what a novice stks race is - but if novice races generally contain "non-random" characteristics, Excel should find it. i.e. Momemtum strategies outperform on weak Novice races
This is what I believe my graphs show (but in a different (unknown) context) - which I'm trying to find out etc.
It's difficult to explain
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
but I'd liken it to the following real physics problem.
Our current technology detected our galaxy isn't moving like it should. Something, is causing this anomaly - but we don't know what. Discover the what, we have real knowledge (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor)
In the context of pre-race, Excel has detected an equity curve that isn't behaving like a random edge. Something is causing this anomaly - but we don't know what. Discover the what, we have real knowledge, & potentially a real edge.
The difference between the Great Attractor, & the pre-race example - Peter actually cracked it
Certainly a ramble that, apologies lads
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)