Hi Matt, I have never posted any message so far because your instructions where perfectly clear (but I enjoyed reading some of the new ideas by the others), but now the subject is getting more intriguing and I have 2 points to submit:

1) Can the shallow pb system decide to sell a trade generated by a long of the deeper system (and viceversa) or they go long/sell by shallow and long/sell by deeper? and Can a shallow pb system generate an additional long when there is already a long in place generated previously by the deeper one (and viceversa)? and Are the 3 extra multi-entries generated only by the shallow if the first entry is by the shallow or you can get a mix of shallow and deeper? If the system is rigid in keeping the 2 systems separated in their trading lives (as I guess it should be), the trades that were generated 2 days ago are really a very rare event (and statistically almost irrilevant if well managed), otherwise we may get other occurences like that too often in the future. (The reason why I asked you these questions is because , after reading your last post, I noticed that either you treated the monday long trade generated by the deeper pb as a 2nd multi-entry trade (but the 1st one was shallow), or you had a second multientry generated by the shallow and you ignored the long generated by the deeper.

2) I consider you as the smartest and MOST HONEST guy in this business (I have paid big money to most of your competitors in the past) , and I think the solution you proposed of just ignoring the sell signal by the shallow system sounds good (at my superficial evaluation). I appreciated your effort of illustrating part of your system to us, but the decision of what to do should be ONLY YOURS and not influenced by any of us. I trust you 100%.

Stefano

Does the multi-entry system, as it stands - the original, have an ordering of trades where/so that a 'shallow'-module signalmay be followed by a 'deeper'-module signalthat gives the subsequent additional entrie(s)?

And a statistical question too please? ~ How does the time invested in an average trade change with the two choices please?

Thank you Matt

Hmmm... maybe I'm not reading this correctly???

The majority of those who responded to Matt's question would rather risk losing $151,000 in potential profit ($603,000-452,000) in order to assure that a 0.89% gain (what the SPY was up today) on 1 trade (that might happen every 16 years) is captured.

What am I missing here?

The deeper pullback system is more profitable (reliable) vs the shallow system. It would make sense that it trumps the ss.

I would make the adjustment, even if it rarely occurs.

Matt, honestly, I wouldn't change anything, but if you do, I trust that you will backtest it to kingdom come before you implement it.  I am impressed with this system's stats as it is and wouldn't want you to make a change just because of something that hasn't happened in 16 years.

I'm not bothered in the least by the small loss, fwiw, and am looking forward to following the next signal whenever that occurs.  Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us - it's obvious you put a lot of time into this.

Continuous product improvement is the name of the game in my opinion. The only problem is the system may get so good you will raise the price ! LOL

Thanks

Like others, it doesn't bother me at all that the last trade was a loss.  This is an amazing system and we're privileged to be following it.  

That being said, if your suggested tweak is the next step you want to take in evolving the system, go for it.  

Matt the information you gave on the trades was interesting, however I don't have an opinon on any changes to it. You're the man. Your knowledge exceeds mine vastly that is why I subscribed to the system. If I knew more why would I need your system? If I could do  my own why would I need your system? I'm not going to judge the system on one or two trades. I am content to go with it and give it the benefit of the doubt for a substantial period of time.

Thanks for creating it and making it available.

If the current signal only happened ONE time in 16 years (during OpEx week BTW), I say leave the System as it is.  I like the total net profit of $603K, the profit factor $26, and the total number of trades about 260.

Having the deep pb buy signal overiding the shallow pb sell signal makes sense to me.  I suppose the corrsponding logic relating to shorting probably should also be looked at.

The sytem is off to an interesting start.  After this I suspect everything should settle down quickly...especially if we could get everyone to read the faqs.  lol

Sid

Matt, thanks for the clarification. That was very interesting, even without understanding the intricacies of how the system works. One thing I learned from following a similar system some time ago was that invariably it worked out badly for participants to try to second-guess system, and while no system is perfect, I'm fully prepared to follow the signals as they are generated and look forward to seeing how this plays out over time.

Thanks for making this system available.

In my view, this board acts responsibly and courteously for the most part.  I see very little whining and bitching.  I see concerned investors wishing to learn more about a system in which they believe.  Sure, sometimes they get a little nervous, but that's to be expected.

Matt,

First off, don't go second-guessing yourself just because the first trade was a teeny loser.

Secondly, correct me if I'm wrong - the only thing you want to change, if history is any indication, will probably only be relevant every few years? So why not use your own initial wisdom instead of our feedback.

Personally, big drawdowns scare me and make me do stupid things. So I was quite happy to sell my 60% at a teeny loss, rather than endure the larger drawdown, even though the larger drawdown would have eventually turned into a winner this time. Heck, you've probably enabled me to live a little longer because of avoiding that added stress. :-))

You've been working on this for a long time, ironing out every detail. I would trust your judgement when you set up the rules in the first place. I'm probably not in the majority, but I vote for leaving it the way it is.

Take care,

......Susan

Anticipation of the big debut triggered Murphy's Law . I'm sure your patch will fix it. Keep up the great work Matt.

Matt, I would not object. If the deeper pullback system gives a buy, then I would prefer to ignore the sell from the short term system.

One of the main logics of the SPY system is to buy pullbacks within an uptrend. I would let the deeper pullback system override the sell from the short term system. Thanks for explaining!

Matt - you know this system better than any of us, so if you think adding this logic to the system will improve it, then go ahead by all means.  We do not have as deep an understanding as you of how it all works together.

The logic of having the two systems working together certainly makes sense for the reasons you mention, and I think switching from the 'shallow system' exit to the 'deeper system' exit is logical because it's really reinforcing the logic of the 'shallow system's' original direction -- just with a later exit. Having a follow-on buy at one close with a sell the following open doesn't really seem to fit the overall parameters of the system and I think you should override that with the 'deeper system' rules when it happens.

Bottom line: If you're going to take an entry based on the 'deeper system' signal, then its exit logic should apply as well.

My only question (without divulging anything too specific) would be why did the shallow pullback system override the deeper system in this instance? My intuition would be that the deeper system would generally be thought to control in situations where there exists a conflict. I would imagine it would depend on which system you (the creator) have more confidence. I really appreciate your work and think this system is perfect for my needs. Thanks.

Keep doing your best, your system will take of the rest!