100's of tests with multiple variations of entry rules were applied. It really doesn't matter to me if its "believed" or not. Just stating the results of the testing- Could there be trading savants toiling away in some dungeon who obtain different results via intuition ? Sure, but i prefer to stick to the tested facts.
Here's a similar study about Stops: "Stop-Loss Orders: Help or Hindrance?" http://www.incrediblecharts.com/trading/stoploss-trading-1.php One of the authors of the research paper from the year 2008 surf had posted here as a reference to back his own findings is the very same author of the above study. That same author seems also to have conducted an other study about the usage of TrailingStops, but that study I have not searched/found yet.
From some dude from some uni that nobody has hear of, using ATR? Surf, think of how much sim-monies you would have saved with your recent (last 10 trades) YM trades had you covered instead of adding.
Nope, you just demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea about system testing with simulated data. I don't need to do curve-fitting. Curve-fitting is usually done by those who use past data, but I prefer forwardtesting with realtime sources, and also simulated data because one can test quickly and cheaply 1000s of market situations. Read my this recent reply in an other thread: http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index.php?threads/100-wins-over-240-days.298459/page-4#post-4258495 Really, I just wonder about the IQ of those people who still question the usefulnes of simulated market data for system testing... Amoebe-IQ I would say...