If you really want to know, call Fidelity and ask them. Otherwise, I'm pretty satisfied with the data and the backtest.
I'm questioning how you can incorporate data which does not exist, i.e., volume data on something which does not trade and therefore generates no volume. If it is a key component of your backtest and it is faulty, then the validity of your test is suspect. Don't you agree?
Thanks for that. Data is data, which brings me to the point that you're taking volume studies off the OEX, applying them to the SPX and interpolating the data over to the ES. Your process is flawed to say the least, with each manual change in procedure (SPX-->OEX-->ES) providing a window of opportunity for data manipulation and corruption. LOL ... you make way to many assumptions. Those are just the Hershyites who will grasp at anything which says Jacks processes are profitable ... instead of looking at their brokerage accounts. P. S. I really don't believe you know what you're doing.
There certainly could be data differences. But using an untradable index isn't getting us anywhere. There is volume in our SPX data, but what is it? Is it option contracts, or just the total volume from all SP500 stocks? I could find out, but it really doesn't matter. If you care to validate your results, sort of a "peer review", we can do it. It's easy: - Post a test on a real security. - Post just a few trades from anywhere in the last few months. - Post a couple days of data you are using from the same period. I did all of that in this thread already and it only took a few minutes.
Thanks for asking the pointed questions Index Maximus. bwolinsky's answers shows he doesn't actually have a clue of how to conduct a stringent and rigorous backtesting of a trading system. If he tried to show these results his Supervisor would laugh in his face ... and then call HR and tell them to start submitting resumes. P.S. Don't worry about it WG, the minute they start putting their money into the program, they are going to see how good it is ... LOL this thread.
I'm doing this as a service, Wayne, and I don't know owe you anything for it. I've posted the program which is 99% of the process. I posted what results I'm getting out of the program. I've not denied there is not enough data, but if you're not going to use Fidelity data, unless you have a hacked copy which I suspect here or you would have done it by now, then you're not going to be able to verify the results. You're also doubting my ability to perform a backtest on data that I didn't create, but Fidelity did. Anyway, I'm sure somebody out there has duplicated it by now.
Don't be such an ass, I did 99% of the work and you're expecting me to change what? My data? My data is what it is. And I've also built programs in WL way longer than anybody here, save for Spydertrader, and a couple others I have worked extensively with on wl4.wealth-lab.com. I'm going to take this to wealth-lab.com and see if they can duplicate it, and I'm pretty sure they'll be able to.
Let's get something straight. You're comparing apples to oranges to bananas and saying that the results are valid because they are all fruits. You're the one who's the ass here. I personally don't think the results of your minute window of mixed data analysis is worth a shit. But you and all of Hershey's henchmen should feel free to put your money into that spaceship, just don't come crying to us when the thing blows up in mid flight. :eek:
I don't use Fido. ! have been using Wealth-Lab for 7 years. Way before the Fido buyout.. Unlike you, I am not a newbie at this. You are hiding something. I don't know why and I don't care. Your test results are bogus. They will not verify. You will not show the data you are using. This is just another Hershey dead end.