Kevin_in_GA
4,599 posts
msg #107629
- Ignore Kevin_in_GA |
8/14/2012 10:31:24 PM
How about a random number function? This would be great in backtesting - rather than saying "sort by volume descending" (which is almost certainly NOT the order in which trades would be entered in real life) you could say
sort by random(1,100) descending
where the function generates a random number for each trade between X and Y.
|
Kevin_in_GA
4,599 posts
msg #107635
- Ignore Kevin_in_GA |
8/15/2012 6:51:07 AM
Follow up comment - this approach would yield different results each time a backtest is run, which at first would seem to be a bad thing. In reality, running a backtest 10 times would give you a probable range of profits and perfromance rather than a single point in time.
This is only the case for filters where more stocks are typically returned than are traded based on the portfolio size selected.
|
Kevin_in_GA
4,599 posts
msg #107673
- Ignore Kevin_in_GA |
8/16/2012 11:36:31 AM
Is this going to become yet another example of a lack of response from the SF crew?
Honestly, there have simply been too many times where requests are made by members and there is never even the courtesy of a response from SF. Just look at the Backtesting forum - how many times have requests been made without any response from SF at all? To whom do you think these requests are being made - the forum members who have no ability to add functionality, or you guys?
And yes, I know you would prefer to be emailed, but when discussing new functionality or addressing deficiencies this is the better place ...
|
tomb
267 posts
msg #107675
- Ignore tomb |
8/16/2012 11:47:08 AM
We are not ignoring your request. Yes, we strongly prefer requests via emails, but are happy to receive them via the forums as well.
We have added your request to the list of potential features for StockFetcher's backtesting. The feature you are requesting is extremely unique and not something we not received calls for in the past; however, it is something we will consider.
In the future, please don't take our lack of response to your requests as the request being ignored. We don't have anything else to add beyond the above.
Tom
StockFetcher Support
|
Kevin_in_GA
4,599 posts
msg #107682
- Ignore Kevin_in_GA |
8/16/2012 1:43:57 PM
Thanks. Note that you responded in 11 minutes to my complaint but ignored the original request until the complaint was made.
|
tomb
267 posts
msg #107683
- Ignore tomb |
8/16/2012 1:47:08 PM
I can guarantee, as with most all messages, our staff read your message if far under 11 minutes! :-) However, as indicated in my response, we really didn't have anything to add/ask/request to your feature suggestion.
If you are simply looking for reassurance that we read forum messages -- we'll try to do better next time!
Tom
StockFetcher Support
|