LOL! At least Wong gets the joke. He probably knows that exactly this has been said by Confuzius and later re-quoted by Kim Ung-Yong, two major philosophers, both probably a lot smarter than "nononsense". "nononsense", however, still walks around the lives of the literate completely blind withtout a cane, embarrassing himself by criticizing those who know. How funny can you be LOL? I'm putting "nononsense" into quotation marks now, because it's such a funny oxymoron, I just have to highlight it. Best Compliments, ~Scientist
@harrytrader I appreciated your in-depth post much. Let me please ask some questions: Thanx for your explanation. I understand the basics of statistical calculations. So I know how and how the calculation is performed, but I don't understand the "meaning" (don't have a better term). The calculation return the probability that 20 independent test of the same probability all(!!) show me that there is a Prob(non HO) is true. But what does that mean? What does this imply in the above context? May be, I still have turned my brain off ... @ButterMilk Could you please elaborate on the term "realistically" ? @Nitro True words. That's what in fact made me thinking about what I'm doing when I select any parameter set for a given strategy. Any selection of parameter (or even a strategy itself) is an "optimization". Every time I test and validate a strategy, I choose settings parameters which can even hardly be testet "out-of-sample" or "walk-forward". Examples: - the pool of instruments I focus on - length of in-sample and out-of-sample periods Ok, I do not want this issue to become too academic. So I ask myself: do strict roll-forward tests (stepwise through the complete time-frame, verifying virtually "all" selected parameters) make sense, or is this simply not possible ?