It seems to me that adding stops to the system could lock in large losses which don't exist in backtesting the straight sell signals. I am not inclined to do anything that could change already stellar backtest results.

If this is a reversion to the mean logic system and the first buy is on a "stretched rubber band", the second is stretched a little more, the third......, etc,  then why sell just before the snapback that gives our profits? Matt's system has a "stop" if you want to call it that. IT's called a sell signal, no? Why would I want to sell somewhere of my choosing unless I didn't trust that my performance could come close to the backtest results?

Any modification is potentially dangerous to backtest results. With such fantastic backtest results, I would first like to achieve something similar (which would be a big improvement on my prior results) before trying to make it better on my own !!

For me, it's just keep it simple and work the plan and establish some consistent results and try not to complicate the situation. Period.

Doug Milliken