Not really. Just redundantly emphasizing that no free lunches exist. Discretion has its place in strategy design and research, but no place in the heat of battle. An algo is pretty much dogshit without expert discretionary input.
Really appreciate your feedback. What number do you consider for a PF significantly above 1.0? Thanks again for you help.
My own rule of thumb was always that - in principle - something that had a PF of 1.5+, over 300+ trades, was worthy of further time, analysis, potential refinement, thought and effort, and should be taken seriously. (I wouldn't "write it in stone", though: it's only really a personal preference. I'm sure there are people who'd only take seriously something higher than that, and maybe people making a living from things lower than that, in PF terms. And of course many people using more complicated parameters than "PF" in the first place! I've always found it useful, though - and it's certainly easy enough to understand and monitor.)
Achieving Success in the markets is not about instinct, divine inspiration or spontaneous intellectual combustion. It is largely depended on intelligent data processing, sound method and the successful management of risk etc. The most useful metrics to measure you trading success are given below Win ratio equity curve vs. benchmark Sharpe ratio percentage of time profitable vs. benchmark (consistency) drawdown Average win larger than average loss average time in the trade Biggest win larger than biggest loss net profitable at the end of the session after commissions Percentage of daily range captured.