Consistent Losers

[drayco]

Yes, the point being that if you examine the returns from formula coded robot trading systems with no human intervention the best losing systems seem to lose far more than the best winning systems seem to win. Therefore, if you can latch on to a really good losing system (one with a large number of trades for progression, horrible win% and huge drawdown) then reverse the signals and do the opposite you should have a far better system than using the so-called best winning systems.
The worst systems just could be the best if used this way, but people mess with them trying to make them 'better' and ruin the whole thing. Taking the worst and looking at it from the other side of the fence can = the best!Especially if you pay attention to the market and use good money management.
I feel lots of systems like this have been tossed out simply because they were viewed wrongly.
Just like the e-mail i got (and posted here) from Tradeforexsignals.com. They claim they have changed things so there aren't as many losers. In my opinion they had it right the first time.I would rather have the first really terrible signals and reverse them rather than go along with the 'improved signals' they have now.

[yardie]

Drayco how do you know that they have not already tried the reversal strategy thing?

[initialsBB]

Finding consistently losing method is as difficult as finding consistently winning one. Even bad systems will do well at some point. I hear many complaints about those commercially available mechanical systems (4x Made Easy, Vantage Point). People say they lost money with them but i don't know if anyone tried to turn them upsidedown. Another option are neural networks - they can be profitable but they also can be consisten losers (in fact creating losing networks is easier then creating winning ones).