Is this reasonable?

Is it reasonable to expect a strategy that works in 2011 to work in 2006?

The current strategy I have works for the past 2-3 years but not for 2006-2007. It averages around 12 trades a month. This an intraday strategy. Should I take action and look for something that works in both 2006 and 2011 and everything in between or should I stick with what I got?
Is it a question or thinking out loud?
This is an actual question and I'm looking for actual responses please. Thanks.
Hi Feng451,
lol (451 fahrenheit... Rad Bradbury's book ... book burning). Markets are mecurial. Most technical analysis, e.g., moving averages, histograms, oscillators, etc., follow price (Mark Douglas, M.D., The Discipline Trader), which tends to fail to produce tradeable probabilities (e.g., equity index futures. (Ken Shaleen of Chartwatch has a Technical Analysis Characteristic Reliability Index supporting this statement.)

I've been applying a fade the first move for nearly two decades; not every session, but enough to warrant that it be apart of my daily trading considerations.

Keep your strategies flexible, real time, bright, brief and gone.
my username is feng456 so i have no idea what ur talking about...and can you actually answer my question next time? i read over your post several times and i cant see how you've answered my question in any way. im not looking for your or anybody's strategy here. im looking for an answer to my original question.

is it reasonable to expect something that works now to work in 2006 for intraday 12 trades a month strategy?
Hi feng456 - I think that the best answer to your question is one that you can answer: Pick the point in 2006 where the strategy started losing money, i.e. the starting point of the largest draw down over several months. Now imagine that you start trading this strategy on Monday and this is how the market behaved for the next X months. How would you feel after your account had been drawn down by this strategy to the worst level that you've measured in the past? Would the subsequent gains then make up for those loses and provide you with enough profits? How many months would it take before you were breaking even again? How would you be feeling emotionally at that point.

Take for example the gap fade study that I did, and particularly the comments on this page:

...Account balance at the start $10,000

1 contract traded every day there is a gap no matter the size of the gap.

After 4 months your account would have dropped to $6,387.50

After 5.5 months your account would finally be back to its original level of $10,000

i.e. after almost 6 months (half a year) of work (trading) you are back at where you started financially and emotionally you might be a wreck. On top of that you still have all your living expenses and trading expenses...

If in the long run your strategy makes money and you can mentally and financially handle the longest draw down losing period then this might be a good strategy for you.

In my opinion you should assume the worst possible outcome and assume that when you start trading this strategy that it will happen as the worst draw down the strategy has every seen is about to start.
i think you missed my point. if i were to apply your questions to say the year 1750, it wouldnt really be relevant would it? i know it's an extreme but it's to illustrate my point that the question i'm asking is whether or not 5 years ago is relevant.

if i had the results i did 5 years ago right now, this would not be worth trading
Originally posted by feng456

Is it reasonable to expect a strategy that works in 2011 to work in 2006?

Originally posted by feng456

...i'm asking is whether or not 5 years ago is relevant...

No, not in this market. However, that's not to say that those conditions won't return one day and if you didn't notice the return of that environment then your strategy may stop working at that point.
thank you for finally answering my question.