I believe it was Charlie Wright who said in a trade station video 25 years ago something to the affect of “when it stops making money in the environment it should make money.” 2.5x drawdowns are table stakes.
Maybe improve the filters for entries oder wait for the underlying market to behave as expected (not trading in uncertain times f.e.)
Is it? Its not clear to me that it is. Take system "A", is the 162K figure the profit per year or the total profit over 16 years? If it is 162K per year, then I agree, the largest drawdown is very small. However if it is total profit over 16 years. Then the average yearly profit for System "A" is only 10K a year and the biggest drawdown is 7K. A 7K drawdown for a system that makes 10K a year is not a small drawdown. If so then his back tests could already be including some large drawdowns, which is good.
So if you realize that then why bring up govmint-think that only wealthy individuals should invest in hedge funds. Anyone can buy stonks and lose their money, why should hedgie investments be treated any different?
IMO, those systems never should have been traded in the real world: nothing in above results is anything likely (possible) to occur in reality. Results are due to data-fitting, IMO.
When you write throwaway responses you deserve to be attacked or better still be ignored. quote from xenomorph. I'm used to being attacked. https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...iced-when-scalping.371071/page-2#post-5715760
Agree. 60% is very much "high end". Size of wins should be significantly higher than size of losses... or something is seriously wrong.