Im not going into full detail on a public forum. Its just enough to nudge you in the right direciton. Dropping gems and letting your creative mind sculpt. Heres another.....multi-timeframe left shoulder consistency
Understandable that not all is to be shared in public. Is there a performance record for viewing, however? I'm probably wrong about multi-timeframe left shoulder consistency but here goes: In support/resistance systems or related systems (name is not important), one important factor is the number of touches on that level. Therefore, the left shoulder short is the most consistent trade to be made because it is the first touch of a level. Whether it makes a head as a form of continuation in the uptrend or an inverted V reversal down or just an impulse move is not important as far as consistency goes because it is a high-winrate strategy.
Refer to my post about how many samples are required to raise conviction levels. A bad system can make money for years before showing its true colors. What will you do with a broker statement, it will not impact your conviction. A detailed strategy can be tested and will always be the only verifiable document of substance. Verification requires tedious testing of 5000+ samples. There is no shortcut. Heres another.... higher capital
True. Higher capital has upsides and downsides. But if we are talking about consistency, the obvious answer would be that it allows one to hold for an eventual win/breakeven at the cost of potentially greater drawdowns.
Do you think so? Would that be a system which is a bullmarket system only and does not account for a nasty market correction? Would that be the only example or can you think of others?
Richard Dennis said his system made a lot more than testing showed later on, because they were running above optimal leverage and got lucky. I believe he lost a lot in the '87 crash some time later.
An example would be a system that does well in trending environments but fails in chop, vice versa. As stockpredictor just mentioned unchartered leverage. Testing through to certainty is the key. Stop reading historical results and idly adopting
A system that recognizes where it works and in what conditions, can be used in conjunction with correlation-divergence systems, but not in and of itself. That is, if a counter-trend system to short an uptrend works, if may fail when there is a true downtrend. However, there are stocks that go up at those times, akin to an ecosystem; a low on X creates a high on Y at the same time, or within the same timeframe. The subtle shift is a signal of the changing tide. Dow Theory attempts to take advantage of this, although it is a crude method because it does not take enough information into account. Testing to certainty seems unreasonable as far as shorter horizons go. If long term, inflation eventually makes the bull market go up, as it has been, even after Japan's crash to new highs. Capital can be raised if certainty is reached- but has it? That is, what is the certainty of certainty?