- Ignore agawfi
|6/17/2015 3:54:52 PM
Backtesting is the main reason I use stockfetcher. If it is not going to be available, there will be no other way to test my filters and test new ideas. so it will be pointless for me creating new filters here without being able to back test them.
Stockfetcher, please reconsider the option of keeping the Backtesting feature even as an add-on !
Thank you !
- Ignore Viksi
|6/17/2015 8:12:29 PM
Please reconsider the option of leaving the back testing feature.
- Ignore evo34
|6/18/2015 2:03:48 AM
Profitspi.com is a very similar site to SF wrt backtesting. Their new interface is overly cumbersome, however, IMO. But the old (classic) one is fairly easy to use and is still accessible on the site. One big difference is that they do not update filter results intraday.
- Ignore kontrst
|6/18/2015 3:51:58 AM
No backtest = no more membership
- Ignore broski
|6/18/2015 8:24:47 AM
Do you recommend any certain website for backtesting that will work with your filters?
Like many of the other posts the filters are all created and then proven through backtesting before we trade, without backtesting the filters are worthless. There are many screeners available for free.
Would you be willing to sell the backtesting code?
- Ignore marine2
|6/18/2015 12:03:38 PM
To be ahead of your competition you need features / tools that your competitors do not have. The backtesting tool with all the work SF did to make it work smoothly was a lot on their end. But, they had a well rounded service that met the needs of their root tool that being filtering capabilities. Now with SF removing a great compliment to their filtering tool makes the service more bland and closer to their competition. Only they know how many subscribers they can lose over this removal and still be what the remaining subscribers want and need. It's a fine line they are walking and hopefully if they were to get more members they would bring their backtesting tool back into their arsenal of tools. For now, we all must unwind ourselves from being used to using their tool at key times of filter development. Now our mode will be, create the filter, and guess if it will be effective or not. I still say, either up our subscription cost or use it in their advanced edition only and up that cost? Oh well, no use trying to revive a dead quality race horse. It ran well, we liked it, and now we must get used to the divorce of it. That old saying is true here, we giveth, and we taketh away. Like it or unsubscribe.
|6/18/2015 2:03:23 PM
As a bit of insight to our decision. When one of our tools generates a disproportionately large component of our customer support it is prudent for us to investigate why. Is it the tool itself (i.e. could it be re-written more clearly) or is the intended function of the tool the root cause?
For us, backtesting presented this situation. Backtesting activity on StockFetcher represents a very small percentage of our members; the support requirement generated for backtesting is not a small percentage. That ratio is a concern for us. A concerted effort to rewrite the tool to clarify the user experience would undoubtedly address some issues. However, it is the second concern related to the root process of backtesting, from the front-end to back-end, that is support intensive.
Many of you have suggested either increasing rates or an "add-on" fee to continue the tool. We have the numbers, and unless every single member of StockFetcher agreed to an across-the-board price increase, an optional add-on subscription fee falls far short in addressing what is required to continue, let alone reconstruct, this tool.
Ultimately, we agree wholeheartedly that delving in to how a StockFetcher screen performs in the past is a requirement for StockFetcher. However, we feel just as strongly that a historical "simulation", aka "backtesting", is not the solution for StockFetcher. That said, it does not mean we don't have ideas and plans for more effective methods of analyzing the performance of a filter, while avoiding the pitfalls of a backtesting simulation.
- Ignore Kevin_in_GA
|6/18/2015 3:48:20 PM
I for one will not miss the back testing capability of SF - it was limited at best. I had stopped using SF backtesting several years ago and now rely solely on StrataSearch to develop systems.
Frankly there are other better back-testing options for any serious investor, and the truth for most SF users is that they develop ENTRY filters only and often ignore the required EXIT rules to make a true SYSTEM.
- Ignore evo34
|6/18/2015 6:04:35 PM
"it does not mean we don't have ideas and plans for more effective methods of analyzing the performance of a filter, while avoiding the pitfalls of a backtesting simulation. "
I'm all for new ideas, but....how could you analyze the performance of something without checking the historical performance of it (i.e., backtesting it)? Not trying to be snarky -- I'm genuinely intrigued/confused by your statement. Any further insight would be welcome.
Perhaps you mean your system will record live simulated trades and allow users to look at performance stats over time?
|6/18/2015 7:18:28 PM
Analyzing the past results of a filter and backtesting (or simulated trades, as currently implemented) are very different constructs. A trading simulation attempts to mimic the entry and exit of cycle of trading approach. We believe it is possible to abstract how a filter selects candidates, including how those candidates behave, without involving the entire trading process.
Hope that helps!