This is very interesting
@mcdon030 . Thank you for sharing your work.
Here's a puzzling thing. I have made a few versions and now (I think) I have 2 main ones that I'm testing. First one is what I refer to as a hybrid of early verions "v1" and "v3"code (I only made the hybrid to remove some labels originally, but have since turned them back on) and the second one is your most up to date "Long and Short" version (including the line edits).
So here's what's puzzling me (testABC1 only, tested on /ES, 1 contract, 5m/5day):
1. The hybrid performs admirably! (as is - longs only) +$15,862, 48 trades, success rate 65.7%
2. The "Long and Short" version (selecting longs only) Amazing! +$20,920, 44 trades, (45 wins/3 losses = 102% success??)
3. The "long and short" version (selecting shorts only) +$11,262, 28 trades / 28 wins / 100%
4. The odd thing is that when using the 'long and short' version (selecting long and short), the results were not the same as combining the longs (2 above) and the shorts (3 above). Results: +$22,550, 39 trades / 38 wins / 97.5%
5. On some timeframes (tested 15m), the hybrid (original version) outperformed the 'long and short' version
My questions are:
1. I'm wondering how the entry selection process changed between these two versions that made for more trades (5m) and less profit/success on the early version and less trades/more profit & success rate on the latter version.
2. I'm assuming that selecting 'long and short' to run simultaneously, sometimes the strategy will not take a long trade because it is already in a short trade? Thus making the individual performances of 'long only' and 'short only' greater than a 'long and short' approach?
Thanks again
@mcdon030 . Fascinating stuff.