Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

BlueHorseshoe

Simple Testing of Bollinger Bands

Recommended Posts

Bollinger Bands are currently being discussed on another thread. This post is not a comment on that thread, but a quick look at "fading the bands" for anyone who might be interested. I am not suggesting that this or similar approaches are either viable or otherwise.

 

The attached chart shows the results of fading any close outside of the Bollinger Bands in the ES over the last 10 years, using a single contract. Entries are on the close, and exits are on the subsequent close after a position has been held for one day (no other exit type or stoploss was used). No slippage or commission has been deducted. These results were obtained by optimising the lookback length for the indicator. A graph is also attached, showing how these results would have varied for different lookback lengths.

 

BlueHorseshoe

Bollinger Band Test.pdfFetching info...

Bollinger Band Equity.pdfFetching info...

5aa7113314b5b_BollingerBandOptimisation.png.1974d884031836415e8a407cc25c43a5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, thats very nice of you to show it in a graphical fashion...I hope you won't mind if I say that my own research shows similar results for INTRADAY data....the only disclaimer is that I have only done research using my own method for entry and exit..

 

Thanks again, makes my task a lot easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say one more thing about this....since I have been here (a few years) this is one of the only times that anyone has taken a moment to do some of their own research (I am sure the fact that you decided to do this on Bollinger Bands is just coincidence)...

 

Nevertheless, people should make note....this is (in my opinion) the single most productive thing that they can do to learn about a subject and (if we can take this one step further) find ways to use available indicators (technology in general) to advance their understanding of "how to trade successfully"...

 

If someone (anyone) were to take a moment to look at a daily chart, re-read Blue Horseshoe's comment and really think about it, they might see something similar to what I saw when I first started to test BB's. As it turns out, there are a number of ways to use Bollinger Bands, some which John Bollinger anticipated, some that he may not have thought of....

 

To declare (as Predictor did) that Bollinger's invention was "trivial" is in my view an example of stunning, enduring ignorance...People should take a moment to read about the guy...

 

Thanks again BH for your comment.

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  steve46 said:
Gotta say one more thing about this....since I have been here (a few years) this is one of the only times that anyone has taken a moment to do some of their own research (I am sure the fact that you decided to do this on Bollinger Bands is just coincidence)...

 

Steve

 

Really? I assume everyone on here does something similar to this. I can't really imagine what it would be like to try and trade without undertaking research like this first, but maybe that's just me. If it helps to illustrate what you're trying to explain in your other thread then that's good - there's not point dismissing Bollinger Bands out of hand.

 

Of course, far more interesting than some curve-fitted return is the fact that no tested parameter produced a negative return. Rather than telling us something trivial about Bollinger Bands, this edges towards telling us something much more fundamental about the general behaviour of this market over the test period. Whether Bollinger Bands are the best tool for exploiting such behaviour is open to debate.

 

As for using this intraday . . . If you exit at the close of the next bar as this test did, then your maximum dollar profit would be limited to the movement within that single bar. If you take a five minute chart then the average range of a bar is somewhere around 5 ticks. This means that your profit per trade is limited to $62.50. You either have to use limit orders and risk not getting filled (happens far more often than most would imagine, and only affects would-be winning trades - losers are always filled), or use market orders and pay the spread. Assume you have a 100% win rate. If you have pay the spread then you can deduct $12.50 in, $12.50 out, a bit more for slippage, and then your commissions, exchange fees . . . Let's call it $30. Now adjust the win rate to something more realistic, and suddenly there's nothing left.

 

To make this work in lower timeframes a trader would either need a much more accurate entry and exit method than the simple one I tested, or superior execution capabilities.

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What interested me, was that I would hae thought a close outside the BB would have been an indication of continuation - does the reversion/correction just occur on the next day?

 

Perhaps if you were to trade in the direction of the first close when you get a day with a close in the same direction again (suggesting the correction is over), you could have the beginnings of a CTA businness ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  TheDude said:
What interested me, was that I would hae thought a close outside the BB would have been an indication of continuation - does the reversion/correction just occur on the next day?

 

Perhaps if you were to trade in the direction of the first close when you get a day with a close in the same direction again (suggesting the correction is over), you could have the beginnings of a CTA businness ??

 

That's certainly the way that I view it.

 

I don't know what CTA types do nowadays, as they've supposedly become a little smarter (although most of those quants at the trend-following funds are probably set to work on risk management/money mananagement/diversification/order execution type problems), but thirty years ago a Bollinger Band breakout strategy would have been the height of sophistication. Nor would trend following CTAs have bothered waiting for continuation after a pull back into the bands as you suggest - they would just have bought on the close outside the bands, then weathered the adverse excursion. Breakout systems with Bollinger Bands are described in Curtis Faith's 'Way of the Turtle', and also the Emilio Tomasini book 'Trading Systems'.

 

An example of how the two approaches interact (but with Donchian Channel breakouts rather than Bollinger Bands) would be the 'Turtle Soup' strategy described in 'Street Smarts'. Most trend following entries result in small losses, so for someone taking the other side of the CTA's entry and only looking for a small profit, there is high probability trade.

 

I'll try and run a similar test of trading Bollinger Band breakouts if I get time.

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as an aside, Blue the type of testing you are doing now is empirical in nature. I use this type of testing extensively when developing my trading systems. This sort of testing is much different then relying on statistical laws/properties for known distributions. Most of all, the statistical properties of price series often change dramatically in the future rendering profitable historical rules unprofitable.

 

The point I was making earlier wasn't that standard deviation couldn't be used. Notice, I said as much that some traders might find them useful. My point was that because price series don't have a known distribution and don't have the properties that standard deviation assumes that they can't be used correctly/formally/etc. This concept applies to most statistical measures that I know of.

 

You may want to look up descriptive vs predictive statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like others here I am always amazed at how much you have to say about subjects (you say) you know so little about...

 

discontinous data sets offer challenges to be sure...your problem is that you can't find a solution to that obstacle by doing a couple of hours research on the Internet....

Edited by steve46

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  BlueHorseshoe said:
Really? I assume everyone on here does something similar to this. I can't really imagine what it would be like to try and trade without undertaking research like this first, but maybe that's just me. If it helps to illustrate what you're trying to explain in your other thread then that's good - there's not point dismissing Bollinger Bands out of hand.

 

Of course, far more interesting than some curve-fitted return is the fact that no tested parameter produced a negative return. Rather than telling us something trivial about Bollinger Bands, this edges towards telling us something much more fundamental about the general behaviour of this market over the test period. Whether Bollinger Bands are the best tool for exploiting such behaviour is open to debate.

 

As for using this intraday . . . If you exit at the close of the next bar as this test did, then your maximum dollar profit would be limited to the movement within that single bar. If you take a five minute chart then the average range of a bar is somewhere around 5 ticks. This means that your profit per trade is limited to $62.50. You either have to use limit orders and risk not getting filled (happens far more often than most would imagine, and only affects would-be winning trades - losers are always filled), or use market orders and pay the spread. Assume you have a 100% win rate. If you have pay the spread then you can deduct $12.50 in, $12.50 out, a bit more for slippage, and then your commissions, exchange fees . . . Let's call it $30. Now adjust the win rate to something more realistic, and suddenly there's nothing left.

 

To make this work in lower timeframes a trader would either need a much more accurate entry and exit method than the simple one I tested, or superior execution capabilities.

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

 

Well it took a long while to get there, but you have arrived at a conclusion that is clear...you can't use BB's as the centerpiece of a trading system....and thats why in my system they are called "training wheels"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  steve46 said:
Well it took a long while to get there, but you have arrived at a conclusion that is clear...you can't use BB's as the centerpiece of a trading system....and thats why in my system they are called "training wheels"....

 

Hi Steve,

 

I didn't mean to give the impression that I had arrived at any clear conclusion.

 

Nor did I mean to imply that Bollinger Bands were the sole component of your trading system - that's why I brought this discussion over to another thread so as not to confuse whatever concept you're trying to develop on the other thread. I literally intended this thread to be a footnote pointing out that Bollinger Bands can be a useful aid . . .

 

Bollinger Bands could, possibly, be used as the centrepiece for a trading system in a higher timeframe (whether "swing trading" rejections from the bands, or looking for breakouts entries as a trend-follower might). In much lower timeframes though, I think that one would need other tricks up ones sleeve which, given that you never implied that the Bollinger Bands were anything other than visual "training wheels" on your charts, I'm assuming that you have.

 

Cheers,

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  steve46 said:

discontinous data sets offer challenges to be sure...

 

If you can find a function to accurately describe behaviour around the limit, you can wave the magic wand of the statistician and treat the discontinuity as a jump process within a gaussian distibution . . .

 

Should you choose to do this, then you will need to be both very good at maths, and pretty damn stupid!

 

BlueHorseshoe

Edited by BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Predictor said:

The point I was making earlier wasn't that standard deviation couldn't be used. Notice, I said as much that some traders might find them useful. My point was that because price series don't have a known distribution and don't have the properties that standard deviation assumes that they can't be used correctly/formally/etc. This concept applies to most statistical measures that I know of.

 

I think that you're right - most statistical measures can only be applied to the market in a very general way, and we shouldn't be at all suprised when they fail to perform as expected unless we have very conservative expectations.

 

I also probably overstated my case somewhat. If I'd run the same test on something like Orange Juice futures, or even the Euro/Usd currency pair, I wouldn't have got the same results. The ES has shown a pronounced tendency for mean-reversion that is far less reliable in other instruments. My only apology for this is that many traders on TL primarily trade the ES.

 

I also think there's an important difference between each of the following three statements:

 

a) Markets have a known distribution

b) Markets don't have a known distribution

c) Markets behave as though they have a known distribution most of the time.

 

The third would be my choice of description, and I think it is one that can be useful.

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  BlueHorseshoe said:
I think that you're right - most statistical measures can only be applied to the market in a very general way, and we shouldn't be at all suprised when they fail to perform as expected unless we have very conservative expectations.

 

I also probably overstated my case somewhat. If I'd run the same test on something like Orange Juice futures, or even the Euro/Usd currency pair, I wouldn't have got the same results. The ES has shown a pronounced tendency for mean-reversion that is far less reliable in other instruments. My only apology for this is that many traders on TL primarily trade the ES.

 

I also think there's an important difference between each of the following three statements:

 

a) Markets have a known distribution

b) Markets don't have a known distribution

c) Markets behave as though they have a known distribution most of the time.

 

The third would be my choice of description, and I think it is one that can be useful.

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

Remarkable..so here is a comment that I feel obligated to make...nothing personal about it. Nothing controversial about it as follows

 

If by "statistical measures" you mean the basic tools that skilled operators can use (both parametric and non) then it is no different than asking a skilled carpenter to build something for you....In either case a skilled, experienced person will know what tools to choose, and how to use them to reach the desired result...

Edited by steve46

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  steve46 said:
Remarkable..

 

Sorry, Steve, but I'm not going to "take sides" in yours and Predictor's ongoing quarrels. As such, I am likely to agree with anything that either of you says if I think there is some truth in it. Of course, if you start to become rude to me again, then I shall revert to treating you as I did before.

 

  steve46 said:

If by "statistical measures" you mean the basic tools that skilled operators can use (both parametric and non) then it is no different than asking a skilled carpenter to build something for you....In either case a skilled, experienced person will know what tools to choose, and how to use them to reach the desired result...

 

What you say is true - a skilled carpenter will select the correct tools for the job. A plane to smooth a surface, say. However, no matter how skilled he may be, and no matter how deftly he planes, he will never entirely eliminate the grain from the surface of the material he works. The wood will always have a grain, no matter how much he smooths it.

 

Price data will always contain series that cannot be 'smoothed away' with statistical procedures, even the 'correct ones', wielded by an adept.

 

As I pointed out to Predictor, I don't think this matters. Your Bollinger Bands, and whatever else you use, only needs to be accurate enough to make you money. The fact that they will never perfectly describe price distributions matters no more than 100th of a millimeter grain in the surface of the table I write at. It's all good enough.

 

That's enough with the extended metaphors!

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.