I mentioned I wasn’t convinced that ConsecuSig means anything special yesterday. That probably stems from the DACTI strategy design principle. That was part of the first SA article that I submitted last weekend but pulled to write the second one that is still pending.
DACTI is my version of the KISS principle – Keep it simple stupid. Did the guy who developed this add “stupid” because he wanted to spell “kiss” instead of “kis”? Is there an implied comma between “s” and “s”? These are among the kiss mysteries that persist to the present day.
DACTI stands for – Don’t analyze consecutive time idiot. ConsecuSig analyzes consecutive time, so a cursory consideration suggests it may violate the DACTI principle.
Whatever the theoretical outlook for ConsecSig, the DACTI principle is an attempt to explain why finite state analysis is superior to consecutive time when building trading strategies. Is this true? That’s not an easy thing to prove but I think we are getting closer. It’s simple enough to refute, someone just has to demonstrate a strategy using consecutive time that is more or less equivalent to any of the many ones I’ve shown.
Anyway, research is getting to a point where we can start thinking about formulating conclusions.
These are results over about the last 10 years, 2458 days.
The xFF ConsequSig numbers go:
- 1 happened 187 times
- 2 happened 75 times
- 3 happened 32 times
- 4 happened 7 times
- 5 happened 1 time