So according to your above statement, you had to add an ADDITIONAL condition to the code in order to get your negative EQ curve! So now the question is, why did you select an additional condition that gave you a negative EQ curve??? EEK!
MAK, are you a native speaker? Serious question... all BS aside. I tested the "0 to 7 turn" on many portfolios... randomly selected, S&P stocks, etc. It was never my intent to sabotage the results. It was my intent to find something robust enough to give an edge on almost any large group of stocks I selected, which it did not. What condition(s) did you use to select the portfolio you backtested it on?
YES, ALL BS ASIDE. So by choosing an ADDITIONAL condition that is a portfolio of "randomly selected S&P stocks", your portfolio backtest shows that such a backtest of a "0 to 7 turn" produces a negative EQ curve. The opposite of this result is a positve EQ curve where the backtest used a portfolio that is NOT a random selection of stocks. Alas, we have found something; an input difference. A random vs non-random portfolio input. On one side, a random input yields a negative result. On the other side, a non-random input did NOT yield a negative result. If one were to prefer not having a negative result, then why not use a portfolio that is not randomly selected (ie has criteria). You know the conditions. It is difficult to find anything robust enough to handle randomness. As has been mentioned before, Acrary was a master of isolating such things...
That's not what I wrote! Do you know what a comma means? You have serious reading comprehension issues for a native speaker. I know for a fact that there are plenty of patterns that DO test out profitably over the same portfolios and timeframes I tested the "0 to 7 turn" on, WITHOUT adding in the ADDITIONAL conditions you continually fail to describe. For something that Jack calls Catch Up with Tomorrowâs Paper Today, the "0 to 7 turn" of the P,V Boolean relation is a gold plated turd.
What I notice as I keep real time logs is that I sometimes write in the next row something like "want to see X" or "confirm peak volume" and then if it does turn out that way I write "YES!". My logs are getting to be full of these "YES!" entries and I'm contemplating switching over to only logging "WTF! No!" to save on ink (actually Faber Castell HB).
Where I am from, we call those "pecker tracks". You know, those slick shiny trails you see on the sheets the morning after?
thanks for the reply......as price is, what price is, then I do not see price as pragmatic.......price is resultant, a finality in print......price only ever includes the ambition and or emotion of the traders who transacted to produce an agreed level........how that is pragmatic I am not sure because price is an agreement unto itself through senses of value and sentiment (for those involved in the transaction).......value is an abstract form at most degrees of trend if not all........afterall, ask what makes a weakhand rush for the door in an inverted peak, a climax of selling..........the weakhand sees less value in holding a declining price whereas the opposing negotiator is the smart hand who helps to instigate the seldown to achieve the cheaper price........so the price displays this action.......within that action exists a world of different moves preplanned and spontaneous........my task is to figure which side is which, for who's purpose and thus who am I trading with, not against....... so you think other traders don't see? ok. I am also a musician.......I have always shaken my head at this notion that the chart is like music.......what utter drivel.......let's see.......take my own music that Ive handed to several musicians from different backgrounds with the same grounding in music theory........not one ever plays the same way......sure the fundamentals of mechanics are the same......such things as inflection, tone and timbre are individual.....always different........most importantly, the sheet music is already post, hindsight.......so where on earth is the comparison tween a piece of music scripted already and an instantly unfurling chart ......there is no connection except in some romanticism of thought........a piece of music that is already written and misinterpreted is a far cry from a chart NOT written and misinterpreted in action.......the consequences are not even remotely connected........you see, I can tell you to play Bb in C time with 5/8 feel with 16 bars to vocal and 64 bars middle 8 yadda yadda.........but if you pick up the wrong instrument the piece is toast from the get-go! the player may instantly interpret the music differently to me........if that musician doesnt take the time to understand my intention then the result is different to what I want........and all this for a piece of history that we can BOTH already see.........there is no pragmatism within the notation, within each note......... only within my own and the other musicians bias or end-game.......that's where the real knowledge exists.......that's what I need to know......... .......also, I need to know the background of the players.......in there I can find a similarity to music from trading........that I need to understand what the other players, big and small, nearterm, swing, daytraders, mutuals, specialists, floor traders........what is THEIR game........I simply don't know what prices they are chasing from thinking along a linear path of a bar.........I need to think about motives and the context they occur, the relative size........none of this is prewritten, not like a music score........ so, to summise (and generally get this stuff, about music, off my chest)........the similarity that most people use with music and trading is from the wrong angle, if there is any at all......... this is an interesting conversation, thanks Jack be well, have a stellar weekend Joules