Reply

Different view before process WFM

4 replies

SteveChou

Customer, bbp_participant, community, sq-ultimate, 40 replies.

Visit profile

2 years ago #270784

I’m Just provide a different think with this article title.
Do you think WFM result important? If yes, what’s the different between running simple optimization or not before WFM?
Let me explain it, we know we build the original strategy then put it to robustness test.
If passed, maybe we will running simple optimization (or not).
If yes, you will get the optimization strategy of orignial.
So, at this monment we get 2 strategies with the same logic but different parameter(or same).
Now, let’s do the WFM.
You can see we need to set the “Value distribution”, up, down and step.
So, do you think about it before? The range and step will different between original strategy and optimization strategy. Because they have different parameters start point(or same).
There are 2 situations with it (if they only use move average) :

1.Parameters is close to the original after optimization.

2.Parameters is far away to the original after optimization.

If we set “the same” ranking option in two different condition above,

At first condition, we will get the similar WFM robustness score both on original and optimization strategy.

But, if we test WFM at second condition, it will get different WFM robustness score both on original and optimization strategy.

I think you can understand what I mean, we don’t know our strategy parameters similar or not after we optimization.

But, we will use that same ranking filters test our strategies with WFM.

It’s doesn’t matter good or bad.
It just a little thinking in WFM.
If you want to share your thinking, please, and thank you.

0

hankeys

Customer, bbp_participant, community, sq-ultimate, 487 replies.

Visit profile

2 years ago #270804

i dont like WFM, because every with every run you can get different results – sure it depends on many factors – how do you have set the WFM, how many params your strategy has, how many params you are optimizing which how many steps and what is your param ranges, etc. etc.

and in the final you will get some set of the param you will use in your real trading – but those params can make from your original strategy totally different one, and if you run the robustnest testing on this changed strat, it could fail

for me its more comfortable to discard strats which have died on unseen data and generate new one continuosly and not to make periodical reoptimisations

You want to be a profitable algotrader? We started using StrateQuant software in early 2014. For now we have a very big knowhow for building EAs for every possible types of markets. We share this knowhow, apps, tools and also all final strategies with real traders. If you want to join us, fill in the FORM.

0

SteveChou

Customer, bbp_participant, community, sq-ultimate, 40 replies.

Visit profile

2 years ago #270815

i dont like WFM, because every with every run you can get different results – sure it depends on many factors – how do you have set the WFM, how many params your strategy has, how many params you are optimizing which how many steps and what is your param ranges, etc. etc. and in the final you will get some set of the param you will use in your real trading – but those params can make from your original strategy totally different one, and if you run the robustnest testing on this changed strat, it could fail for me its more comfortable to discard strats which have died on unseen data and generate new one continuosly and not to make periodical reoptimisations

 

Yes, I agree that too.

That is why I never use WFM result to select what strategy I want to use, I prefer to the real OOS testing.

But I still find this different between optimization or not when you want to running WFM.

0

alfonsmartin68

Customer, bbp_participant, community, sq-ultimate, 7 replies.

Visit profile

4 weeks ago #286062

Hi

 

In my case I only use WFM it as a filter.

 

Also I decide if several have passed the strategy has more profitable runs. But I do nnot chose the stable run.

OOS is good but I have some doubts. I bulti iwth IS OISV and OOS.

Second stage I make other OOS.

And third stages I pass several restests with all data.

Here I find the problem, I could use not all data to make finally a third OOS to close the retesting.

But I think teses last data have not passes retesting.

 

Then if WFM use several runs and OOS I understand I may use all data for all retesting, and use WFM as the last one.

 

 

 

0

alfonsmartin68

Customer, bbp_participant, community, sq-ultimate, 7 replies.

Visit profile

4 weeks ago #286063

Hi In my case, I only use WFM it as a filter.

If several strategies have passed WFM I select the one which has generated more profitable runs and has more stable 3D area, but not select the optimized run.

I do not optmize because I think some bug maybe here, I mean, strategies have passed the retest WFM using recommended paramters, does not pass the optimization using the recommended parameters.

 

About the use of OOS; is good but I have some doubts. I buit with DATA USING IS ISV and OOS. Second stage I runother OOS. And final stages I execute several restests using all data. Here I find the problem, I could use not all data to make finally a third OOS to close the retesting. But I think theses last data have not passed retesting. Then if WFM use several runs and OOS I understand I may use all data for all retesting, and use WFM as the last one.

 

 

0

Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)