Please report the Entry and Exit Signals on the backtesting results table. These columns are currently blank. Thanks.
Rename
When you have a problem, please explain it clearly, with as many facts as you can think of, and possibly attach a screenshot to illustrate what you're seeing. How can we reproduce it? The more details the better the chances to track the problem down and help you.
You must be talking about Signal Names. Of course, it would be clearer if the Column headers were "Entry Signal Name" and "Exit Signal Name".
Answer: They won't be blank if you name your signals in PlaceTrade(). Naming signals is not required.
The actual Signals (Alerts) are in another tab view.
Answer: They won't be blank if you name your signals in PlaceTrade(). Naming signals is not required.
The actual Signals (Alerts) are in another tab view.
Eugene, I think I spend a fair amount of time explaining the issues I present. I think you will agree if you care to check the record.
In this case, I agree that I should have been more specific and said the backtesting positions table which has columns called "Entry Signal" and "Exit Signal." I have yet to have any information appear in these columns over many backtests. Previously, WL showed signal information in these columns.
In this case, I agree that I should have been more specific and said the backtesting positions table which has columns called "Entry Signal" and "Exit Signal." I have yet to have any information appear in these columns over many backtests. Previously, WL showed signal information in these columns.
Cone,
I'm referring to "Entry Signal" and Exit Signal" as displayed on the image in your response. Prior to WL7, it seems that WL6.x automatically reported signal information in these two columns without my having to do anything including me naming signals. I'm sure I didn't take the step of giving signals a name in Place Trade() in old WL6.X.
If backtesting shows the entry and exit of a position, seems that an item in the "Entry Signal" column would reference the particular condition in the strategy that triggered the entry, and a reference in the "Exit Signal" column would identify the strategy condition that triggered exiting the position. If that's not the purpose of these columns, perhaps their renaming might be in order.
With strategies that have multiple entry and exit criteria, it would be very helpful to know why positions were entered and exited during a backtest.
I will check WL Help and the Discussion page and look for information on "Signal Names."
I'm referring to "Entry Signal" and Exit Signal" as displayed on the image in your response. Prior to WL7, it seems that WL6.x automatically reported signal information in these two columns without my having to do anything including me naming signals. I'm sure I didn't take the step of giving signals a name in Place Trade() in old WL6.X.
If backtesting shows the entry and exit of a position, seems that an item in the "Entry Signal" column would reference the particular condition in the strategy that triggered the entry, and a reference in the "Exit Signal" column would identify the strategy condition that triggered exiting the position. If that's not the purpose of these columns, perhaps their renaming might be in order.
With strategies that have multiple entry and exit criteria, it would be very helpful to know why positions were entered and exited during a backtest.
I will check WL Help and the Discussion page and look for information on "Signal Names."
Cone,
I just noticed the entries under "Entry Signal" and "Exit Signal" in the image you provided as My Entry and My Exit. These names or other similar names are of no value in trying to assess the performance of a strategy. What's of real value to the user is easily knowing WHY a position was entered and exited. Seems like these two columns' original purpose had to be more significant than as a place to dump random names. I acknowledge that I may be under the mistaken impression that these columns were never intended to reveal which strategy conditions triggered position transactions.
I just noticed the entries under "Entry Signal" and "Exit Signal" in the image you provided as My Entry and My Exit. These names or other similar names are of no value in trying to assess the performance of a strategy. What's of real value to the user is easily knowing WHY a position was entered and exited. Seems like these two columns' original purpose had to be more significant than as a place to dump random names. I acknowledge that I may be under the mistaken impression that these columns were never intended to reveal which strategy conditions triggered position transactions.
QUOTE:
Prior to WL7, it seems that WL6.x automatically reported signal information in these two columns without my having to do anything including me naming signals
Yes, they could be automatically filled in with some labels for Rule-based strategies only. Most signal names weren't very indicative, being like "Group1|" or "Group1|Group2|" but exits were more vocal ("Trailing Stop", "Profit Target" etc.)
Code-based strategies always required assigning an entry/exit signal string in *AtMarket/Stop/whatever for it to be displayed. No automatic assignment was taking place.
Please consider filling these two columns with information identifying the strategy trigger that opened or closed a position.
If we're still speaking of the Positions list, wouldn't redundantly putting the strategy name into each and every entry/exit row duplicate the title bar which already is showing the strategy's title? What's the point in it?
Being the only tool which naturally asks for having a Strategy title on the Positions list, MetaStrategy does fill the "MetaStrategy Component" column with the child strategy's name.
Being the only tool which naturally asks for having a Strategy title on the Positions list, MetaStrategy does fill the "MetaStrategy Component" column with the child strategy's name.
Yes, still discussing the POSITIONS table displayed by selecting the POSITIONS tab in the results of a backtest.
Let's say that a strategy enters a BUY when one of three possible conditions that the strategy includes for initiating a BUY has been met. My suggestion is that the one condition (of the three possible conditions) that resulted in the BUY being triggered be uniquely named in the ENTRY SIGNALS column for that position. Same for EXIT SIGNALS.
Let's say that a strategy enters a BUY when one of three possible conditions that the strategy includes for initiating a BUY has been met. My suggestion is that the one condition (of the three possible conditions) that resulted in the BUY being triggered be uniquely named in the ENTRY SIGNALS column for that position. Same for EXIT SIGNALS.
My answer would be that you should uniquely name them in your code... and then I thought of what you probably missed telling us from the beginning, so let me ask:
"Are we discussing a Building Block Strategy?"
"Are we discussing a Building Block Strategy?"
Unlike Rule-based strategies in WL6, Blocks in WL7 are less vocal in this sense - names aren't assigned to signals. I'll open an issue to see if this can be improved.
If using C# coded strategy, you can assign EntrySignalName and ExitSignalName to your taste. There are code samples in the QuickRef to illustrate. (WL6 has never assigned them automatically.) This is also a workaround for Blocks - code becomes editable with "Open as C# coded strategy" (but once edited it cannot become Blocks again).
If using C# coded strategy, you can assign EntrySignalName and ExitSignalName to your taste. There are code samples in the QuickRef to illustrate. (WL6 has never assigned them automatically.) This is also a workaround for Blocks - code becomes editable with "Open as C# coded strategy" (but once edited it cannot become Blocks again).
It is possible at the discretion of the user. Optional field:
And what if there are multiple conditions?
@fred9999: Thank you for the suggestion. Sorry but conditions and qualifiers cannot influence the entry/exit signal name, they're designed to be independent. Also, saving the limited screen real estate is a concern.
@sdbens20
Please look forward to Build 7 with auto-generated signal names in Blocks:
@sdbens20
Please look forward to Build 7 with auto-generated signal names in Blocks:
Glitch: And what if there are multiple conditions?
Of course I drew it wrong. It is necessary like this:
But if Eugene says that this will not work, then there is nothing to be done :)
Of course I drew it wrong. It is necessary like this:
But if Eugene says that this will not work, then there is nothing to be done :)
QUOTE:
But if Eugene says that this will not work, then there is nothing to be done :)
You're giving me too much credit. When I give up on someting, Glitch comes with an elegant solution - and then some. :)
But I'm concerned about a non-essential input field taking away the screen real estate and potentially confusing inexperienced users into thinking it's required for the Blocks to function.
I think in Post #14 here this is solved, looks like a great solution!
Post #10 – Cone
Yes, we are discussing a Building Block Strategy since I am not a C# programmer. I did miss telling you that I was discussing a Building Block Strategy. On the other hand, you may need to consider that many of your customers use the Building Block Strategy feature that WealthLab promotes as a reason to subscribe.
Post #11 – Eugene
Thank you for opening an issue to see if naming signals can be improved. WL6 did have data entered in the Entry Signals and Exit Signals columns for each position listed in the POSITIONS tab of the Backtest Results output. I agree that these entries were unclear in telling why a position was entered and exited. The workaround mentioned is not useful to me since I am not a C# programmer.
Post #12 – fred9999
I think your suggestion is great! There is plenty of real estate for its implementation, at least as I see WL on my 24” monitor.
Post #13 – Glitch
Simple. Each condition gets a unique signal name as established by the strategy creator.
Post #14 – Eugene
Now we’re getting somewhere. Thanks for including auto-generated signal names in Build 7. The examples listed in your image under EXIT SIGNAL directly address what I’ve been proposing. The entries under ENTRY SIGNAL do not. AT OPEN is not specific. A BUILDING BLOCK STRATEGY might specify that a position will be entered when MFI(20) crosses above 50 OR CCI(100) crosses above 100 OR RSI(14) crosses above 30. A position might be entered because the MFI(20) indicator crossed above 50. In this case, a more useful ENTRY SIGNAL data entry would be MFI(20) crossing. If a position was entered because CCI(100) crossed 100, then the information shown in the ENTRY SIGNAL column for that position would be CCI(100) crossing or something similar.
Post #15 – fred9999
Your modified proposal would not work. By moving Signal Name to the location shown, a position could be entered and the user would not know if the entry was due to “CLOSE” SMA(20) being greater than 0 or “CLOSE” SMA(200) being greater than 0. Your idea in Post #12 is better.
Post #16 – Eugene
I do not consider knowing WHY positions are positions are entered and exited as essential. However, I do believe that many WL users would consider this information extremely useful and valuable in assessing the merits of strategies they are building and evaluating.
I disagree with your assessment of the unacceptable impact of naming signals on-screen real estate. An estimated 25-40% of the CONDITIONS area is blank at present. Adding a SIGNAL NAMES field might use only a quarter of the open real estate.
Inexperienced user confusion should not trump accommodating the needs of longer-term experienced WL users. Please don’t dummy down WL because new users might have a bit longer learning curve.
Post #17 – Glitch
Please see my response to Post 14 above.
Everyone
I think we’re closing in on an improvement to WL. Thanks all.
Yes, we are discussing a Building Block Strategy since I am not a C# programmer. I did miss telling you that I was discussing a Building Block Strategy. On the other hand, you may need to consider that many of your customers use the Building Block Strategy feature that WealthLab promotes as a reason to subscribe.
Post #11 – Eugene
Thank you for opening an issue to see if naming signals can be improved. WL6 did have data entered in the Entry Signals and Exit Signals columns for each position listed in the POSITIONS tab of the Backtest Results output. I agree that these entries were unclear in telling why a position was entered and exited. The workaround mentioned is not useful to me since I am not a C# programmer.
Post #12 – fred9999
I think your suggestion is great! There is plenty of real estate for its implementation, at least as I see WL on my 24” monitor.
Post #13 – Glitch
Simple. Each condition gets a unique signal name as established by the strategy creator.
Post #14 – Eugene
Now we’re getting somewhere. Thanks for including auto-generated signal names in Build 7. The examples listed in your image under EXIT SIGNAL directly address what I’ve been proposing. The entries under ENTRY SIGNAL do not. AT OPEN is not specific. A BUILDING BLOCK STRATEGY might specify that a position will be entered when MFI(20) crosses above 50 OR CCI(100) crosses above 100 OR RSI(14) crosses above 30. A position might be entered because the MFI(20) indicator crossed above 50. In this case, a more useful ENTRY SIGNAL data entry would be MFI(20) crossing. If a position was entered because CCI(100) crossed 100, then the information shown in the ENTRY SIGNAL column for that position would be CCI(100) crossing or something similar.
Post #15 – fred9999
Your modified proposal would not work. By moving Signal Name to the location shown, a position could be entered and the user would not know if the entry was due to “CLOSE” SMA(20) being greater than 0 or “CLOSE” SMA(200) being greater than 0. Your idea in Post #12 is better.
Post #16 – Eugene
I do not consider knowing WHY positions are positions are entered and exited as essential. However, I do believe that many WL users would consider this information extremely useful and valuable in assessing the merits of strategies they are building and evaluating.
I disagree with your assessment of the unacceptable impact of naming signals on-screen real estate. An estimated 25-40% of the CONDITIONS area is blank at present. Adding a SIGNAL NAMES field might use only a quarter of the open real estate.
Inexperienced user confusion should not trump accommodating the needs of longer-term experienced WL users. Please don’t dummy down WL because new users might have a bit longer learning curve.
Post #17 – Glitch
Please see my response to Post 14 above.
Everyone
I think we’re closing in on an improvement to WL. Thanks all.
I see this question is marked as SOLVED. Unless other decisions have been made that haven't been posted, I don't believe the issue is solved. If Eugene's Post #14 is considered the solution, the solution is inadequate as discussed in my Post #18. "AT OPEN" is not sufficient as an identifier of WHY a position was entered. If Post #14 is not the basis for considering this request SOLVED, please let me know what the reason is. Thank you.
sdbens20:
Post #15 – fred9999
Your modified proposal would not work. By moving Signal Name to the location shown, a position could be entered and the user would not know if the entry was due to “CLOSE” SMA(20) being greater than 0 or “CLOSE” SMA(200) being greater than 0. Your idea in Post #12 is better.
----------------------------------------------
For a position to open, all block conditions must be met, not some of them. This means that one block is one signal name. Therefore, No. 12 is wrong, but No. 15 is correct.
Post #15 – fred9999
Your modified proposal would not work. By moving Signal Name to the location shown, a position could be entered and the user would not know if the entry was due to “CLOSE” SMA(20) being greater than 0 or “CLOSE” SMA(200) being greater than 0. Your idea in Post #12 is better.
----------------------------------------------
For a position to open, all block conditions must be met, not some of them. This means that one block is one signal name. Therefore, No. 12 is wrong, but No. 15 is correct.
Apologies, fred9999, for not picking up on the fact that your Post #15 showed a BUY block containing two conditions and a second BUY block containing one condition.
I still really like your idea of placing a SIGNAL NAME space in CONDITIONS boxes. Looks like there is plenty of room and unused room would still be available inside the box.
I still really like your idea of placing a SIGNAL NAME space in CONDITIONS boxes. Looks like there is plenty of room and unused room would still be available inside the box.
You're making a good point regarding a signal name like "AtOpen" not being indicative. Team has agreed that the proposed solution in Post #14 requires an improvement.
We've implemented easily identifiable entry/exit signal names in Build 7.
1. Entry signals now contain the Group name e.g. "Buy At Market (1)", "(2)" etc.
2. Exit signals are human readable e.g. "Sell at 10% profit target"
Conditions and qualifiers cannot be translated into signal names.
1. Entry signals now contain the Group name e.g. "Buy At Market (1)", "(2)" etc.
2. Exit signals are human readable e.g. "Sell at 10% profit target"
Conditions and qualifiers cannot be translated into signal names.
Your Response
Post
Edit Post
Login is required