CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 64 % of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.

Open Strategy Investable Attribute

Hi, I have two strategies one of which has just met the minimum threshold to be listed as a Darwin and so I have had my first look at the scores for my Investable Attributes. Five of them scored higher than 9 which encourages me greatly - one Loss Aversion demonstrates very clearly that I am coming out of profitable trades too quickly and I can take steps to improve.

However one ‘Open Strategy’ scored my strategy 0.52 out of 10 and I think the scoring is flawed.

If you look at NTI who is listed top of Hall of Fame his(or her?) Open Strategy score is 9.45. This comes from comparing actual entry against 11 random strategies entering before or after the actual strategy - his percentile score is 94.86 rounded to a score of 9.45. NTI clearly does not enter the market in a random manner.

My comparison against 11 random strategies produces the exact opposite - my strategy scores lower than all eleven - my percentile score is 5.23% rounded to a score of 0.52. I do not enter the market randomly, I enter based on the close of a 4 hour bar - every trade exactly the same which is why I beat the 11 random strategies but on what Darwinex views as the negative side.

It was one of the hardest lessons I have learnt in trading to not enter a trade until you have confirmation - by consistently entering the market based on a 4 hour signal it would appear that it is impossible for me to improve my score on this attribute.

I think the attribute is supportive of scalpers but is actively discouraging to swing traders.

Should the attribute not simply measure the consistency of entry and be neutral on whether you should go in earlier or later - should it not be the divergence from random (emotional) entries that should be scored?

I think I should be scored almost identically to NTI - he has a percentile score of 94.86% and I have the mirror opposite 5.23% - he is 44.86% above neutral and I am 44.77% below neutral and I think I should have the same score for Open Strategy.

I have seen similar low scores in other Darwins who have larger average pips indicating they are swing traders rather than scalpers

Some other Investable Attributes measure evidence that there is a pattern underlying decisions i,e, there is a strategy - this Open Strategy identifies there is a strategy but then decides that one type of strategy is good and another is bad - I happen to believe my 4 hour entry is a good strategy but this Investable Attribute gives it a very negative valuation which I don’t believe can be based on what it is measuring.

I think I saw someone from Darwinex (apologies if I am wrong) arguing that scoring more pips on a trade has to be positive however that is ignoring all the lost pips on failed trades that were avoided by waiting for a confirmed signal - something that is impossible for Darwinex to measure as they do not know what trades I avoided - but is something that I have measured for well over a year - my profit is higher if I wait for confirmation rather than get in earlier.

I wonder what anyone else thinks and could I be right that there is a flaw in the current scoring?


A post was merged into an existing topic: Os/Cs Investable Attribute (former Timing)