betyerbottomdollar
169 posts
msg #51136
- Ignore betyerbottomdollar
modified |
4/15/2007 6:02:03 PM
No, I don't have a life.
I spent my entire Sunday playing around with different screens based on the bollinger band squeeze (sorry God, maybe I will make it to church next week). After loads of subtle tweaking I came up with a screen that returned 82% winners from 15 April, 2005 to 14 April, 2007. I have to say, I am happy with the results, but is the true measure of a screens success in the percent of winners to losers, the Risk/Reward (2.31) or the ROI% (28.43%)? Of course, the ultimate way is to put my portfolio on the line but I would like to spend a few more Sundays studying this before I throw my hard-earned cash into the markets.
What do you guys (and gals) think? And do you have any screens that trump mine? And suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
|
durgin
60 posts
msg #51144
- Ignore durgin |
4/16/2007 8:30:46 AM
Don't you mean "Close above 5"? Even with 5 -- you only get a few stocks.
|
betyerbottomdollar
169 posts
msg #51164
- Ignore betyerbottomdollar |
4/16/2007 6:46:51 PM
Nope, close above 50. The two-year time frame traded only 22 stocks closing above 50 for an 82% win rate (that is less than one stock a month). BUT if you are putting your entire portfolio on the line each time you trade, an 82% win rate (gaining 10% each trade) is going to more than double your $$ annually. Pretty good I would say.
I had tried the scan with stocks closing above 5 which resulted in many more trades (which equal commissions in real life) and a win rate of about 60-something percent.
If you can figure out a way to squeeze a better percentage of winning trades out of lower-priced stocks, by all means, let me know. That is why we are here, right? :)
Cheers, Casey
|