General support questions.

Quote: Originally posted by saycem

I have 4 strategies that are using setexitonclose trading live from GSB for the last couple of months and I have not seen an issue, so I'm confused as I was unaware of other options. What are you using if not setexitonclose?

Quote: Originally posted by saycem

I have 4 strategies that are using setexitonclose trading live from GSB for the last couple of months and I have not seen an issue, so I'm confused as I was unaware of other options. What are you using if not setexitonclose?

Quote: Originally posted by appengineer

Quote: Originally posted by saycem   I have 4 strategies that are using setexitonclose trading live from GSB for the last couple of months and I have not seen an issue, so I'm confused as I was unaware of other options. What are you using if not setexitonclose? I am using this to manually close all trades at 1500 for ES sessionEnding = CalcTime(SessionEndTime(0,1), 0); If Time >= sessionEnding and MarketPosition(0) <> 0 Then

Quote: Originally posted by LucaRicatti

Hi, I'm evaluating GSB and it's impressive. I would like to test forex systems but got aggregate exceptions errors few seconds after hitting Play (ES and stocks are ok). Is there a working forex setup to share? Thanks

Quote: Originally posted by admin

Thanks for your comments. this is fixed in 55.61. There was no volume in your price data https://trademaid.info/forum/viewthread.php?tid=227#pid3769 I will get the build to you in the next 24 hours after its had some testing GSB 2.0 is going to be working better in for forex. We will add pattern filters etc

Quote: Originally posted by LucaRicatti

Quote: Originally posted by admin   Thanks for your comments. this is fixed in 55.61. There was no volume in your price data https://trademaid.info/forum/viewthread.php?tid=227#pid3769 I will get the build to you in the next 24 hours after its had some testing GSB 2.0 is going to be working better in for forex. We will add pattern filters etc Many thanks, added the volume to my data and now it's running. If you need help in testing beta or forex I got Multicharts/Interactive Brokers data subscription (and time to devote)

I tried to run an optimization process in GSB 1.0.54.97 / 2019-08-31 (latest available trial version). And what I notice is that when optimization process goes on and I change a system by selecting, let's say, OOS column in the Unique Systems window, I get an exception (probably any column except "ID" produces an exception, and exceptions also occurs after optimization process ends).

See the screenshot below.

Is it a known issue?


Another observation is that after some number of exceptions GSB starts to function incorrectly - does not show workers running in Resource Monitor window, optimization process never ends e.t.c. I was not even able to complete the full methodology as described on the help page (stuck somewhere on Walk-Forward Optimization) because of these exceptions and incorrect product functioning after them. I am not sure, maybe this was caused by a lack of RAM or pretty old Windows Server 2008 R2 x64 OS. I now try to run the process again on Windows 10.

But exceptions, when I switch a system in a Unique-Systems window, do occur on Windows 10 as well. And they are quite annoying. Is it possible to fix them?

I attached a .txt file with one of these exceptions from C:\GSB\Exceptions folder.



Attachment: Login to view the details

Quote: Originally posted by Sten

I tried to run an optimization process in GSB 1.0.54.97 / 2019-08-31 (latest available trial version). And what I notice is that when optimization process goes on and I change a system by selecting, let's say, OOS column in the Unique Systems window, I get an exception (probably any column except "ID" produces an exception, and exceptions also occurs after optimization process ends). See the screenshot below. Is it a known issue? Another observation is that after some number of exceptions GSB starts to function incorrectly - does not show workers running in Resource Monitor window, optimization process never ends e.t.c. I was not even able to complete the full methodology as described on the help page (stuck somewhere on Walk-Forward Optimization) because of these exceptions and incorrect product functioning after them. I am not sure, maybe this was caused by a lack of RAM or pretty old Windows Server 2008 R2 x64 OS. I now try to run the process again on Windows 10. But exceptions, when I switch a system in a Unique-Systems window, do occur on Windows 10 as well. And they are quite annoying. Is it possible to fix them? I attached a .txt file with one of these exceptions from C:\GSB\Exceptions folder.

Quote: Originally posted by Sten

Peter, thanks! The build you e-mailed me fixes the exception. I was not able to repeat the exception while running optimization process. Now I am trying to walk through all the steps from Methodology and see if it works. I'll let you know if I find other issues. By the way, I have a question. The methodology document says: https://trademaid.info/gsbhelp/Provingthemethodology.html ------ 2) Select the best systems Change nth to all. Dates are still pre 20150630. <--- Sort on NP/DD and get the top roughly 2000 systems, put into favorites A. ------ When I change nth to all, GSB asks me if I want to re-backtest all selected systems or not. Do I understand correctly that I should re-backtest systems so that GSB recalculates systems stats after I change nth to all?

Here is another issue. I'm using GSB 1.0.55.90 / 2019-11-07 and I started 1000 walk-forward tests from Favorite-A, sent them to the cloud (as described in the Methodology). And left Manager and workers working for the night.

Next morning I see the following picture in the GSB Manager in Unique Systems window:



Some systems have completed WFO tests, some are Waiting, and few are running. That is ok.

However, when I look into Manager's Resources Monitor window I see this:



It shows Stubs are stopped, "Optimization/Status" tree is empty (I use this to monitor progress and see how worker are loaded with the tasks). User "Tasks / Active" tree is also empty, if I try to expand it, it shows "Active" contains empty list, and then withing a second becomes "> Active" so I can expand it again - but in reality "> Active" tree does not contain any user tasks.

The only thing that shows that workers are loaded with the tasks is "Optimization / Speed" section. I can see here that there are some workers which are doing something and GSB calculates their speed.

So the problem is that after some time when WFO tests are running, GSB Manager shows in the status that all stubs are stopped. So it becomes uncomfortable to monitor the task progress.


Here is how it looks on one of the worker machines, worker's Resource Monitor window:



We can see that worker load's "Sys. CPU" and that suggests it is actually doing something. At the same time in the "Optimization / Status" on the worker shows "Stopped" status.

And Unique System's window on the worker shows:



that worker is actually processing some WFO tests. So, once again, the "Optimization / Status" is displayed incorrectly.

The numbers in the WFS column are increasing (both on the Manager and in the Worker machines). So it looks like the system is doing something useful - WFO calculation goes on, so I'm leaving it working for some more time.

But it would be nice to fix this bug with incorrect Status for workers. As now I do not feel comfortable when I try to monitor the task progress - I always ask myself a question, if GSB still works, or has stuck somewhere in the middle of the process, and doing nothing.

Hi Peter,

Thanks, I removed 750 systems and did WFO for the remaining 250 ones. I also added dual Xeon server to my workers pool.

I was able to finish the Methodology process, however, it looks I'm doing something wrong:



Unlike in the documentation, I see some performance degradation from D to C stats (-3.5%). And a big degradation from F to E (-51.6%). So on Out of Sample period strategies performance degrades significantly.

I think I was careful enough to implement Optimization settings described in the "Proving the Methodology" and "Updates" sections. It is possible I misunderstood some items, or there are differences in the settings described in the documentation and in the latest GSB version.

I attached my optimization settings:
Attachment: Login to view the details


The biggest difference that I use IQFeed data for my process as I do not have access to TradeStation data. From my experience many workflows do not work as good on IQFeed continuous futures data when ported from TradeStation.

So, I do not know whether I do something wrong in GSB, or it is just the result of data coming from different data provider. It would help if you look at my optimization settings.


----
Another observation - when I run wf_stats macro and then look at Graph for some strategy I see something like this on the chart:



The big gap in P/L on the chart. I think this is the result of Trading Dates Mode being set to NoTrd after macro finishes. If I change Trading Dates Mode to All, the chart looks ok. But I wonder if this disrepancy on the chart breaks statistics (for example, does GSB calculates NetProfit correctly for Dates = NoTrd case?).

I tried to modify the wf_stats macro and change the date in the latest GlobalDates command from 12/31/2100 to 02/28/2018 so that to eliminate this 2019 OOS data completely. But then D/C and E/F statistics become even worse. So it looks like this OOS 2019 part of the P/L curve is not responsible for the stats degradation.

Quote: Originally posted by Sten

Hi Peter, Thanks, I removed 750 systems and did WFO for the remaining 250 ones. I also added dual Xeon server to my workers pool. I was able to finish the Methodology process, however, it looks I'm doing something wrong: Unlike in the documentation, I see some performance degradation from D to C stats (-3.5%). And a big degradation from F to E (-51.6%). So on Out of Sample period strategies performance degrades significantly. I think I was careful enough to implement Optimization settings described in the "Proving the Methodology" and "Updates" sections. It is possible I misunderstood some items, or there are differences in the settings described in the documentation and in the latest GSB version. I attached my optimization settings: The biggest difference that I use IQFeed data for my process as I do not have access to TradeStation data. From my experience many workflows do not work as good on IQFeed continuous futures data when ported from TradeStation. So, I do not know whether I do something wrong in GSB, or it is just the result of data coming from different data provider. It would help if you look at my optimization settings. ---- Another observation - when I run wf_stats macro and then look at Graph for some strategy I see something like this on the chart: The big gap in P/L on the chart. I think this is the result of Trading Dates Mode being set to NoTrd after macro finishes. If I change Trading Dates Mode to All, the chart looks ok. But I wonder if this disrepancy on the chart breaks statistics (for example, does GSB calculates NetProfit correctly for Dates = NoTrd case?). I tried to modify the wf_stats macro and change the date in the latest GlobalDates command from 12/31/2100 to 02/28/2018 so that to eliminate this 2019 OOS data completely. But then D/C and E/F statistics become even worse. So it looks like this OOS 2019 part of the P/L curve is not responsible for the stats degradation.

Hi Sten,
I can see numerous causes for this.
The biggest being 6 entry modes enabled, not just the entry cross dual level
Your verification needs to be 30,29,31 (vip 30 is first)
What I cant see in your settings, is entry level weights -10,10,1 in parms and wfparpms. The field doesnt exist when I use your settings
autoNth must also be set to all. This has been moved from app settings to opt settings in a recent build.
All of this is going to help a lot.
What you see in the graph was ok

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the tips!

I changed verification to be 30,29,31. autoNth = All.
And set "Entry Level Mode" to SignedPower, "Entry Level Value: 4".

Also I found I did not set "Entry Params. 2" to "-10;10;1" for Params and WF Params. Fixed this. On the other hand I did have "Entry Params" set properly.

As for "Entry Modes". It looks like there is some incompatibility in settings in trial version and full build that you use. I only have "Cross" Entry Mode enabled in my settings (there is no CrossOver or "entry cross dual" in the trial build, so I hope "Cross" is the correct setting).

Anyway, I am going to rerun the process. Let's see if these changes help to produce more robust strategies.

Quote: Originally posted by Sten

Hi Peter, Thanks for the tips! I changed verification to be 30,29,31. autoNth = All. And set "Entry Level Mode" to SignedPower, "Entry Level Value: 4". Also I found I did not set "Entry Params. 2" to "-10;10;1" for Params and WF Params. Fixed this. On the other hand I did have "Entry Params" set properly. As for "Entry Modes". It looks like there is some incompatibility in settings in trial version and full build that you use. I only have "Cross" Entry Mode enabled in my settings (there is no CrossOver or "entry cross dual" in the trial build, so I hope "Cross" is the correct setting). Anyway, I am going to rerun the process. Let's see if these changes help to produce more robust strategies.

Quote: Originally posted by engtraderfx

Hi Peter, I am updating thru RM & finding no change in root directory c:\GSB but all the exe files are now in cloud directory C:\GSB\Cloud Workers. Is that where they all appear now? Maybe i should delete & reinstall? Thanks Dave

Quote: Originally posted by admin

Quote: Originally posted by engtraderfx   Hi Peter, I am updating thru RM & finding no change in root directory c:\GSB but all the exe files are now in cloud directory C:\GSB\Cloud Workers. Is that where they all appear now? Maybe i should delete & reinstall? Thanks Dave Ive seen another user with this issue, and not sure why. check c:\gsb is excluded from your anti virus program. No need to delete, you can just rename the folder to rm.bad there is a new rm out a few minutes ago. Bug fix but I dont think it will fix your issue. Worst case make a batch file to copy the manager from \worker folder to \gsb (or copy it manually)

Yes i have the same issue, but mine ends up in WORKERfolder below GSB, not in GSB CLOUD WORKER, they have alwasy ended up in main GSB folder, where i believe they should end up? my path in RM is correct, so it does not make any sense... i have solved it just by copying over managers and scripts tp the main GSB folder... but it would be nice to understand why, one day it just changed Anyway, works as it should in the end.

Quote: Originally posted by Daniel UK1

Quote: Originally posted by admin   Quote: Originally posted by engtraderfx   Hi Peter, I am updating thru RM & finding no change in root directory c:\GSB but all the exe files are now in cloud directory C:\GSB\Cloud Workers. Is that where they all appear now? Maybe i should delete & reinstall? Thanks Dave Ive seen another user with this issue, and not sure why. check c:\gsb is excluded from your anti virus program. No need to delete, you can just rename the folder to rm.bad there is a new rm out a few minutes ago. Bug fix but I dont think it will fix your issue. Worst case make a batch file to copy the manager from \worker folder to \gsb (or copy it manually) Yes i have the same issue, but mine ends up in WORKERfolder below GSB, not in GSB CLOUD WORKER, they have alwasy ended up in main GSB folder, where i believe they should end up? my path in RM is correct, so it does not make any sense... i have solved it just by copying over managers and scripts tp the main GSB folder... but it would be nice to understand why, one day it just changed Anyway, works as it should in the end.

Quote: Originally posted by admin

Quote: Originally posted by Sten   Hi Peter, Thanks for the tips! I changed verification to be 30,29,31. autoNth = All. And set "Entry Level Mode" to SignedPower, "Entry Level Value: 4". Also I found I did not set "Entry Params. 2" to "-10;10;1" for Params and WF Params. Fixed this. On the other hand I did have "Entry Params" set properly. As for "Entry Modes". It looks like there is some incompatibility in settings in trial version and full build that you use. I only have "Cross" Entry Mode enabled in my settings (there is no CrossOver or "entry cross dual" in the trial build, so I hope "Cross" is the correct setting). Anyway, I am going to rerun the process. Let's see if these changes help to produce more robust strategies. Hi Sten, trial users has a few less options. This is due to either the feature being experimental - and not decided if its a good idea, or just to keep things simpler, or to stop users using options that likely are not helpful unless they know what they are doing. Dual cross is my favorite setting, followed by single level cross, followed by cross. There is however little difference between them all. Hope to see you as a purchaser soon

Hi Peter,

After I rerun the process I've got the following results:



It became better, but still far from what is described in the documentation. F/E stats -15.3% drop concerns me. As far as I understand we should see an improvement here.
My optimization settings are attached for the reference, but I think I took into account all previous suggestions, and I should be pretty close to the Methodology from the documentation.


Overall, it is extremely hard to evaluate the trial version and see if GSB works for me, in particular, for the following reasons:

- Methodology process is described in two separate sections in documentation ("Proving the methodology" and "Updates") with some parts being outdated and another parts overriding what is described previously. There is no plain single Methodology document;
- Some parameter names differ in trial build and in full version (and from what is described in the documentation);
- Trial version does not include some parameters described in the Methodology;
- Optimization Settings file with all Methodology settings is not provided with the trial build (that would simplify the process a lot);
- The software is not completely stable (for example, after I run 250 multithreaded WFO's on my workers + cloud, most of them complete withing the night, but 1-3 WFO usually remain in the Running state forever, and even if I stop them and run WFO again for these systems, they enter Running state and never finish);
- As a professional developer I see lot's of bugs in GSB (progress bar works somewhat strange, for example);
- Also product documentation is not easy to read and understand.

So, I like the idea behind GSB, in particular that it is able to do WFO for the generated systems to assess their robustness. But, at least for now, I'm not able to properly evaluate GSB and prove it can generate some useful systems for me given the IQFeed historical data that I have. At least, I'm not able to replicate the results from the documentation.

I already own AdaptTrade Builder which I find not being able to generate systems that I consider robust enough to trade for real money, so I'm a bit careful with GSB evaluation.

I am going run a few more tests and try to produce better systems, and then continue to monitor GSB development. But for now I am not convinced to invest a solid amount of money into buying the full version.


Attachment: Login to view the details

Quote: Originally posted by Sten

Hi Peter, After I rerun the process I've got the following results: It became better, but still far from what is described in the documentation. F/E stats -15.3% drop concerns me. As far as I understand we should see an improvement here. My optimization settings are attached for the reference, but I think I took into account all previous suggestions, and I should be pretty close to the Methodology from the documentation. Overall, it is extremely hard to evaluate the trial version and see if GSB works for me, in particular, for the following reasons: - Methodology process is described in two separate sections in documentation ("Proving the methodology" and "Updates") with some parts being outdated and another parts overriding what is described previously. There is no plain single Methodology document; - Some parameter names differ in trial build and in full version (and from what is described in the documentation); - Trial version does not include some parameters described in the Methodology; - Optimization Settings file with all Methodology settings is not provided with the trial build (that would simplify the process a lot); - The software is not completely stable (for example, after I run 250 multithreaded WFO's on my workers + cloud, most of them complete withing the night, but 1-3 WFO usually remain in the Running state forever, and even if I stop them and run WFO again for these systems, they enter Running state and never finish); - As a professional developer I see lot's of bugs in GSB (progress bar works somewhat strange, for example); - Also product documentation is not easy to read and understand. So, I like the idea behind GSB, in particular that it is able to do WFO for the generated systems to assess their robustness. But, at least for now, I'm not able to properly evaluate GSB and prove it can generate some useful systems for me given the IQFeed historical data that I have. At least, I'm not able to replicate the results from the documentation. I already own AdaptTrade Builder which I find not being able to generate systems that I consider robust enough to trade for real money, so I'm a bit careful with GSB evaluation. I am going run a few more tests and try to produce better systems, and then continue to monitor GSB development. But for now I am not convinced to invest a solid amount of money into buying the full version.

Hi Stan,

I just endend my trial period and decided to purchase GSB and apply for a Tradestation account (got Multicharts but they need to fix data2 bug).

I had poor results with trial version and had difficulty understanding the method like you, but I liked so much the robustness-stress idea behind GSB that I choose not to give up and asked Peter for help.

Here the results of my - assisted by Peter - last build with trial version:




PS: First time in this business i met someone dedicated like Peter.

Quote: Originally posted by LucaRicatti

Hi Stan, I just endend my trial period and decided to purchase GSB and apply for a Tradestation account (got Multicharts but they need to fix data2 bug). I had poor results with trial version and had difficulty understanding the method like you, but I liked so much the robustness-stress idea behind GSB that I choose not to give up and asked Peter for help. Here the results of my - assisted by Peter - last build with trial version: PS: First time in this business i met someone dedicated like Peter.

Quote: Originally posted by LucaRicatti

I had poor results with trial version and had difficulty understanding the method like you, but I liked so much the robustness-stress idea behind GSB that I choose not to give up and asked Peter for help. Here the results of my - assisted by Peter - last build with trial version:

Quote: Originally posted by Sten

Hi LucaRicatti, Can you share your optimization settings from your trial version? I want to compare them to mine.

Peter,

Here is another severe bug in GSB.

GSB Manager 1.0.55.90 / 2019-11.07
Windows 10 x64

I started GSB Manager and loaded previously saved 248 strategies. I then add all strategies to Fav.A, sort them on PAS column and add all strategies with PAS > 40 to Fav.B. Then I load and run wf_stats macro for Fav.A. While macro is running I get an exception message among other messages. Here is an exception:

Attachment: Login to view the details

After macro finishes GSB goes into a "broken" state. When I select a different strategy in Unique-Systems window, most of the time GSB does not update strategy code and PnL Graph:






This can easily be seen when I switch to Scripts tab and look at the strategy ID in the script code. Sometimes GSB switches strategy (but very rarely). And sometimes I get a new exception while selecting a different strategy.


Probably this is the similar bug to the one I reported before, but now I know the exact steps how to reproduce it.


Attachment: Login to view the details

Quote: Originally posted by Sten

Peter, Here is another severe bug in GSB. GSB Manager 1.0.55.90 / 2019-11.07 Windows 10 x64 I started GSB Manager and loaded previously saved 248 strategies. I then add all strategies to Fav.A, sort them on PAS column and add all strategies with PAS > 40 to Fav.B. Then I load and run wf_stats macro for Fav.A. While macro is running I get an exception message among other messages. Here is an exception: After macro finishes GSB goes into a "broken" state. When I select a different strategy in Unique-Systems window, most of the time GSB does not update strategy code and PnL Graph: This can easily be seen when I switch to Scripts tab and look at the strategy ID in the script code. Sometimes GSB switches strategy (but very rarely). And sometimes I get a new exception while selecting a different strategy. Probably this is the similar bug to the one I reported before, but now I know the exact steps how to reproduce it.

hi Sten,
we need a support ticket with a system that gives this fault. Someone once said, sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking. (I forgot who it was)
A severe bug is where GSB doesnt work at all, all ts <> gsb (miles out). A intermittent macro hang is very annoying, but its not a severe bug. Regardless we are committed to bug fixes
I run that macro many times in a day, and dont get hangs. Thats not saying you dont get hangs, but its not a common bug thats easy for me to reproduce.

Quote: Originally posted by admin

hi Sten, we need a support ticket with a system that gives this fault. Someone once said, sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking. (I forgot who it was) A severe bug is where GSB doesnt work at all, all ts <> gsb (miles out). A intermittent macro hang is very annoying, but its not a severe bug. Regardless we are committed to bug fixes I run that macro many times in a day, and dont get hangs. Thats not saying you dont get hangs, but its not a common bug thats easy for me to reproduce.

Quote: Originally posted by Sten

Quote: Originally posted by admin   hi Sten, we need a support ticket with a system that gives this fault. Someone once said, sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking. (I forgot who it was) A severe bug is where GSB doesnt work at all, all ts <> gsb (miles out). A intermittent macro hang is very annoying, but its not a severe bug. Regardless we are committed to bug fixes I run that macro many times in a day, and dont get hangs. Thats not saying you dont get hangs, but its not a common bug thats easy for me to reproduce. Yes, the bug is easily reproducible. I notice it very often, and was able to reproduce it from the first attempt using the steps I outlined above. I respectfully disagree. After this bug occurs, it is impossible to continue to work in GSB Manager as it does not display a reliable results (does not show correct system PnL chart, system code e.t.c.). Thus a bug is a severe one. You probably need to use the same build as me to repeat this bug. I attached all 248 systems that I initially load into GSB. As well as optimization settings that I use. wf_stats macro that I run can be found in my post above.

Hi Sten, your settings are very close to what I use. (good), your weight 3 is wrong. Its blank and should be the same as weight1&2
On wf too. This is a minor point and wont make a big difference, or cause your bugs. Human error in settings is something ive done too often, and im resolved now to be more methodical to avoid some of these traps. Ive wasted a lot of time this week over those sorts of things. windiff is good to compare settings that you think should work, but don't with those that you know did work.
Here is an example of my own mistakes I picked up. These comments are for all users, as it may be helpful for others.
I want to do a video on windiff at some stage. I also use to diagnose ts <> (ts/mc)
GSB has extensive diag's to identify this sort of thing

Quote: Originally posted by emsjoflo

I was in the middle of a test with GSBmanager and when RM updated the workers, they no longer recognize my manager. I was wondering why my test was taking so long and I see that I only have one cloud worker under my manager. I tried adding the gsbcloud3_password1234, gsbcloud1_password1234 to my workers but then they get picked up by the cloud. Then i tried changing the group to GSBuser but that didn't work either. any tips? I'd rather not abort the test I have in progress

Quote: Originally posted by admin

WHAT VERSION IS YOUR MANAGER, AND WHAT VERSION ARE THE WORKERS. NORMALLY OLD MANAGERS TALK TO NEW WORKERS, AND NEW MANAGER WONT TALK TO OLD WORKERS.

Quote: Originally posted by admin

HI Sten, I dont use MC, but TS has similar structure. This needs to be fixed in TS and MC then. Thanks for spotting it. TS has two methods of volume, under its chart properties. The volume functions performed poorly in indicator testing (surprisingly to me), but this might explain why.

Quote: Originally posted by Daniel UK1

Quote: Originally posted by admin   HI Sten, I dont use MC, but TS has similar structure. This needs to be fixed in TS and MC then. Thanks for spotting it. TS has two methods of volume, under its chart properties. The volume functions performed poorly in indicator testing (surprisingly to me), but this might explain why. Peter, how should we interpret this? that volume data supplied from user in pricedata file has not been able to be utilised at all for MC users? Thanks

Self Help Actions when GSB produces no systems

Quote: Originally posted by JasonT

Hi Peter, I've just downloaded the latest version of GSB 56.010, and using the out of the box default settings and data, and am not able to get GSB to produce any systems. I've reset app and optimization settings to default and tried it after restarting the computer. Can you please provide a list of things we can check ourselves when this occurs? Many thanks. Jason

Is there a way to force use of secondary data?

Quote: Originally posted by emsjoflo

Is there a way to force use of secondary data in creating systems? If not, is there a way to sort the systems by whether Data2 is being used or not? NO I want to test the quality of systems that use both Data1 and Data2. EASY TO DO. FOLLOW THE METHADOLGY AND GET YOUR TOP 250 OF 50,000 SYSTEMS. THEN SAVE INTO EXCEL & LOOK AT THE % OF SYSTEMS IN YOUR TOP 250 THAT HAVE DATA2 If not, I suppose I could possibly convert Data2 to a custom indicator and try to force use (in all systems) but the last time I tried that, GSB ignored the forced use option and made systems with and without my "forced" custom indicator.

NOT SURE WHY THAT WOULD HAPPEN. YOUR FIRST OPTION IS THE SIMPLE ONE

Which systems go into stats?

Quote: Originally posted by JasonT

Hi Peter, If you build say 50,000 systems then (either manually or with a macro) put statistics into StatsA, which 10,000 systems get saved? eg first 10,000 built? best 10,000 according to profit factor? best 10,000 according to fitness? etc Thanks, Jason

Quote: Originally posted by admin

Quote: Originally posted by JasonT   Hi Peter, If you build say 50,000 systems then (either manually or with a macro) put statistics into StatsA, which 10,000 systems get saved? eg first 10,000 built? best 10,000 according to profit factor? best 10,000 according to fitness? etc Thanks, Jason edit the macro and look. its fitness, but must have pearons .9 and pf 1.5, min trades 100 macro 1 will pick the top 250/500/1000. For indicator testing, im now doing 20k systems, sorting fitness, then putting top 10,000 into favA. This is shown in detail in the next video. due out in 48 hours or less (i hope)

Quote: Originally posted by admin

For indicator testing, im now doing 20k systems, sorting fitness, then putting top 10,000 into favA. This is shown in detail in the next video. due out in 48 hours or less (i hope)

Quote: Originally posted by emsjoflo

Jason[/rquote] However I still don't know what you mean by the 'top' 250/500/1000. What does top mean? Top, measured by what?[/rquote] Jason. Top 250/500/1000 measured by fitness (default is Net Profit × Average Trade Size)

Awesome. Thanks very much

Quote: Originally posted by Sten

Quote: Originally posted by admin   For indicator testing, im now doing 20k systems, sorting fitness, then putting top 10,000 into favA. This is shown in detail in the next video. due out in 48 hours or less (i hope) By the way, I tried to build 50000 systems for indicator testing, and then ran "IndicatorStats+FullSettingsReset_new.gsb" macro on them. (documentation mentions IndicatorStats.macro, but there is no direct download link, and GSB comes with "IndicatorStats+FullSettingsReset_new.gsbmacro" - so that's what I'm using.) I was expecting this macro to finish in maybe 10-15 minutes. But it worked for 8-12 hours or so. That was quite surprising. How long IncdicatorStats macro is expected to run?

Sten, I don't have access to the particular macro file you refer to for some reason but I came up with my own macro based on "MarketValidationStats" but with some minor changes based on a particular type of test I wanted to perform. I'll post the results sometime this week. A screen shot of the macro is attached for your comparison.

I first build 50k systems and this takes anywhere between 5-30 minutes depending on what resources are available and then I run the macro.

It usually then takes me 3-4 hours to run the macro on a laptop with an i7 2.2Ghz CPU.

Quote: Originally posted by JasonT

Sten, I don't have access to the particular macro file you refer to for some reason but I came up with my own macro based on "MarketValidationStats" but with some minor changes based on a particular type of test I wanted to perform. I'll post the results sometime this week. A screen shot of the macro is attached for your comparison. I first build 50k systems and this takes anywhere between 5-30 minutes depending on what resources are available and then I run the macro. It usually then takes me 3-4 hours to run the macro on a laptop with an i7 2.2Ghz CPU.

Quote: Originally posted by Daniel UK1

Question Peter, when i tried today to make a indicator stats save top 10 indicators, in my example for CL, one of them was fractal dimension... however when i am chosing top 10, it only shows that i saved 9, fractal dimension is not anywhere in the indicators... so in reality... i am chosing top 10, popup window confirming that i want to save all 10 and specifying fractal dimension... but then on the left side in GUI, under indicators... it says 9... very strange... or is it just me that misunderstand something? Also, do you sort on ratio or top when you pick indicators? And if you shall chose top 10, and first 5 is greeen, then two orangea, and then 5 green, do you just pick all the green first? Thanks.

Quote: Originally posted by admin

Quote: Originally posted by Daniel UK1   Question Peter, when i tried today to make a indicator stats save top 10 indicators, in my example for CL, one of them was fractal dimension... however when i am chosing top 10, it only shows that i saved 9, fractal dimension is not anywhere in the indicators... so in reality... i am chosing top 10, popup window confirming that i want to save all 10 and specifying fractal dimension... but then on the left side in GUI, under indicators... it says 9... very strange... or is it just me that misunderstand something? Also, do you sort on ratio or top when you pick indicators? And if you shall chose top 10, and first 5 is greeen, then two orangea, and then 5 green, do you just pick all the green first? Thanks. I don't understand how that can be an issue, as ive never seen it. You have to have the indicators high-lighted then save. (likely you know that) I would like to see this via teamviewer. Worst case you can manually turn fractal on. What we choose is sorted by frequency, and then by ratio. Both are important but i work on freq, then ratio. Yes, I would do by colors first. There may even be some small variation from one test to another on the marginal indicators, so likely the process isnt exact & totally critical

Hi Peter, this is very confusing, i brought up a new GSB manager, and loaded the opt version that i used to build my 50k systems on for indicator stats, this one has all the indicators... i can not see any fractal dimension indicator.. this is the opt setting i used when i saved 10 indicators including the fractal dimension that was amont the top... but its not there? i then brought up a new instance of manager, worker and standalone... none has fractal dimension..... so its impossible for me to turn on manually.... but the biggst question is, how can fractional dimension being used to build on, when its not in the list ? then we have the other option that i am just confused or misunderstanding something.. kindly let me know... btw do you have fractional dimension in your list of indicators if you are using a standard version public available?

Quote: Originally posted by Daniel UK1

Quote: Originally posted by admin   Quote: Originally posted by Daniel UK1   Question Peter, when i tried today to make a indicator stats save top 10 indicators, in my example for CL, one of them was fractal dimension... however when i am chosing top 10, it only shows that i saved 9, fractal dimension is not anywhere in the indicators... so in reality... i am chosing top 10, popup window confirming that i want to save all 10 and specifying fractal dimension... but then on the left side in GUI, under indicators... it says 9... very strange... or is it just me that misunderstand something? Also, do you sort on ratio or top when you pick indicators? And if you shall chose top 10, and first 5 is greeen, then two orangea, and then 5 green, do you just pick all the green first? Thanks. I don't understand how that can be an issue, as ive never seen it. You have to have the indicators high-lighted then save. (likely you know that) I would like to see this via teamviewer. Worst case you can manually turn fractal on. What we choose is sorted by frequency, and then by ratio. Both are important but i work on freq, then ratio. Yes, I would do by colors first. There may even be some small variation from one test to another on the marginal indicators, so likely the process isnt exact & totally critical Hi Peter, this is very confusing, i brought up a new GSB manager, and loaded the opt version that i used to build my 50k systems on for indicator stats, this one has all the indicators... i can not see any fractal dimension indicator.. this is the opt setting i used when i saved 10 indicators including the fractal dimension that was amont the top... but its not there? i then brought up a new instance of manager, worker and standalone... none has fractal dimension..... so its impossible for me to turn on manually.... but the biggst question is, how can fractional dimension being used to build on, when its not in the list ? then we have the other option that i am just confused or misunderstanding something.. kindly let me know... btw do you have fractional dimension in your list of indicators if you are using a standard version public available?

Quote: Originally posted by Daniel UK1

Yes lets do TV, in about 1h if possible.... meanwhile can you confirm that when you open your public released manager, and opening up all indicators can see fractional dimension in this list?

Thank you Peter for fixing the issue i had with fractional indicator... Btw one thing that complicates things, is that if you have saved an opt setting several managher version ago, and since then lots of new features and inidcators, options have been added.... if you just load your old saved opt setting, you cna never be sure that those options once saved is really in the newly opened opt setting in the new manager version, since it seems that all new features is set to auto active/true..... would it not be better if it was an option that new features to be turned on, in this way you can be sure that previous saved opt setting, is the same when you open it next year

Thanks

Quote: Originally posted by Daniel UK1

Thank you Peter for fixing the issue i had with fractional indicator... Btw one thing that complicates things, is that if you have saved an opt setting several managher version ago, and since then lots of new features and inidcators, options have been added.... if you just load your old saved opt setting, you cna never be sure that those options once saved is really in the newly opened opt setting in the new manager version, since it seems that all new features is set to auto active/true..... would it not be better if it was an option that new features to be turned on, in this way you can be sure that previous saved opt setting, is the same when you open it next year Thanks

Quote: Originally posted by admin

Quote: Originally posted by Daniel UK1   Thank you Peter for fixing the issue i had with fractional indicator... Btw one thing that complicates things, is that if you have saved an opt setting several managher version ago, and since then lots of new features and inidcators, options have been added.... if you just load your old saved opt setting, you cna never be sure that those options once saved is really in the newly opened opt setting in the new manager version, since it seems that all new features is set to auto active/true..... would it not be better if it was an option that new features to be turned on, in this way you can be sure that previous saved opt setting, is the same when you open it next year Thanks I will think on that. Totally see your perspective and the merits of it. In the next build there are lots of tweaks to the defaults, which will help this situation. That might be a good idea for GSB 2.0 For now just watch this thread for new features added, and turn them off if needed. You have the impersonate feature added (beta tester mode) so we could have impersonate build xyz. Not sure how much work to add this for every new feature

Quote: Originally posted by Daniel UK1

I think the beta tester mode or standard does not matter since problem is the same issue for a standard mode user. Somehow the user that loads the opt setting from any time point, must be able to be sure that what he loads is exactly the same now as when it was when it was saved.

Quote: Originally posted by Sten

Quote: Originally posted by Daniel UK1   I think the beta tester mode or standard does not matter since problem is the same issue for a standard mode user. Somehow the user that loads the opt setting from any time point, must be able to be sure that what he loads is exactly the same now as when it was when it was saved. I second on this. Professional software should have backward compatibility in settings not only between standard/beta mode, but also for the current and previous versions. User should be confident GSB loads the exact settings stored in the file and report errors if some settings can not be applied on this build. One simple alternative could be to make all new features turned off. The negatives to this are new features could be really worth having, and the average user is not going to notice they are added, or read the docs / forum This is extremely important for GSB, which is very sensitive to the setting changes.

Quote: Originally posted by karta1940995

Hi, Peter Can GSB build system with Stop/Limit order for Entry? or only with market order(this bar on close)? Best Regards Vincent

Quote: Originally posted by Sten

Quote: Originally posted by Daniel UK1   I think the beta tester mode or standard does not matter since problem is the same issue for a standard mode user. Somehow the user that loads the opt setting from any time point, must be able to be sure that what he loads is exactly the same now as when it was when it was saved. I second on this. Professional software should have backward compatibility in settings not only between standard/beta mode, but also for the current and previous versions. User should be confident GSB loads the exact settings stored in the file and report errors if some settings can not be applied on this build. This is extremely important for GSB, which is very sensitive to the setting changes.

Quote: Originally posted by Daniel UK1

Quote: Originally posted by Sten   Quote: Originally posted by Daniel UK1   I think the beta tester mode or standard does not matter since problem is the same issue for a standard mode user. Somehow the user that loads the opt setting from any time point, must be able to be sure that what he loads is exactly the same now as when it was when it was saved. I second on this. Professional software should have backward compatibility in settings not only between standard/beta mode, but also for the current and previous versions. User should be confident GSB loads the exact settings stored in the file and report errors if some settings can not be applied on this build. This is extremely important for GSB, which is very sensitive to the setting changes. Hi Peter, how did things go with this? this is extremely important... i just realised that all my saved opt settings, are really of no use... i have spent thousands of hours, months, building milltions of systems... to arrive to specific opt settings... that its not possible today to load back on, and be sure to 100% that this is the settings that was saved.... this is important that we get a solution to... i need as a user, to be able to be sure to 110%, that my opt setting i saved 6 month ago, can be loaded today and that i will get the exact same settings as when it was saved... it should not matter what mode i am in.... even though i keep detailed notes of each test... i still can note down every little piece of info to make the opt setting saved redundant... i think everyone can agree that we need a solution to this quickly. Many thanks Peter

Quote: Originally posted by Daniel UK1

Thanks Peter, Yes Windiff is a good tool to compare, however i dont think its the solution to this. In order to use it i would need first to know the original setting, derived from my saved opt setting, and if i have this, i would not not need windiff i believe. None of my saved opt settings, is saved with version number of manager, i was always in the belief that what was saved could also be loaded in the future no matter which version it was loaded into. Now it seems its not like that. Since i have most likely hundreds of saved opt settings, since i document and save each test setting, and i arrive to a few settings that i build live systems on, its a lot. And i have these saved from early 2019... So windiff will not solve this, and i appreciate the solution you sent, but that would require me to know which GSB version was used for a specific saved opt setting. What about a GSB mode, that have ALL settings/features set to FALSE/0, in this mode you could load a saved Opt setting from any previous version, and i assume i could then be sure that only the settings used in the saved opt setting would be loaded? Thank for considering this issue as very important, in my book the most important one to solve right now, not only going ahead, but also to make use of previous saved opt settings for all users. Apart from this i like GSB a lot and its an important part in my process. Daniel

Hi Peter,

Here are a couple of fresh bugs in GSB:

1. I set "Macros / On Opt. Completed" == true, and run optimization process. When I pause optimization macro automatically starts, which is totally unexpected. When I manually terminate optimization process by pressing terminate button, macro also starts automatically, which is counter-intuitive as I canceled everything.

I expect GSB not to start automatically any macro when users pauses or terminates optimization process.


2. Another issue is not strictly a bug, but is an usability issue. I open "Price Data" dialog and define a new price data series by closing an existing one:



GSB Manager makes a clone of the price series, but sets focus to the "[new] contains 0 items" tree, instead of selecting newly cloned price series:



And I then have to scroll up the list to find price series that I've just cloned.
That takes some time and effort.

I expect GSB Manager to automatically set focus to the newly cloned price series:


Since I am using IQFeed data, and need to enter all price series manually, and for every ticker I need to make someting like 25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35 min price series, so I do a lot of cloning operations. And this wrongly set focus makes my life harder than it should be.


P.S. Also while creating the screenshots for this post I cloned a price series, and "Price Data" dialog went into some crazy state, where CL tree became duplicated, SoyB tree contained some wront items e.t.c. I had to restart "Price Data" dialog. So, there are some bugs here too:

Quote: Originally posted by Sten

Hi Peter, Here are a couple of fresh bugs in GSB: 1. I set "Macros / On Opt. Completed" == true, and run optimization process. When I pause optimization macro automatically starts, which is totally unexpected. When I manually terminate optimization process by pressing terminate button, macro also starts automatically, which is counter-intuitive as I canceled everything. I expect GSB not to start automatically any macro when users pauses or terminates optimization process. Its no big deal, but this post should go here. https://trademaid.info/forum/viewthread.php?tid=6 2. Another issue is not strictly a bug, but is an usability issue. I open "Price Data" dialog and define a new price data series by closing an existing one: GSB Manager makes a clone of the price series, but sets focus to the "[new] contains 0 items" tree, instead of selecting newly cloned price series: And I then have to scroll up the list to find price series that I've just cloned. That takes some time and effort. I expect GSB Manager to automatically set focus to the newly cloned price series: Since I am using IQFeed data, and need to enter all price series manually, and for every ticker I need to make someting like 25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35 min price series, so I do a lot of cloning operations. And this wrongly set focus makes my life harder than it should be. P.S. Also while creating the screenshots for this post I cloned a price series, and "Price Data" dialog went into some crazy state, where CL tree became duplicated, SoyB tree contained some wront items e.t.c. I had to restart "Price Data" dialog. So, there are some bugs here too:

I'm currently watching a video "Genetic system Builder, how to make a Crude Oil Futures day trading system" (probably watching it a 3rd or 4th time).

And in the video Peter mentions CL system uses 30 min bars + 60 min secondary data. The problem is that in current builds there is no "Secondary Data" parameter. At least I am not able to find it.

So, how do I supply secondary data to the GSB?

Quote: Originally posted by Sten

I'm currently watching a video "Genetic system Builder, how to make a Crude Oil Futures day trading system" (probably watching it a 3rd or 4th time). And in the video Peter mentions CL system uses 30 min bars + 60 min secondary data. The problem is that in current builds there is no "Secondary Data" parameter. At least I am not able to find it. So, how do I supply secondary data to the GSB?

Quote: Originally posted by Sten

I'm currently watching a video "Genetic system Builder, how to make a Crude Oil Futures day trading system" (probably watching it a 3rd or 4th time). And in the video Peter mentions CL system uses 30 min bars + 60 min secondary data. The problem is that in current builds there is no "Secondary Data" parameter. At least I am not able to find it. So, how do I supply secondary data to the GSB?

Quote: Originally posted by admin

Hi Sten, just keep in mind this video was done well before the current methodology. What im reasonable confident in is that 30 min, with ho rb ng as data2 will be best combination. Im not confident that adding data2 as 60 min cl is going to help. All this needs to be tested using the method in the first video, nov 2019 https://trademaid.info/gsbhelp/Videos.html I would be interested in the results of this, as will other users.

Hi Sten, in my own dev to find best settings for NG, i have found setup only using NG market works best to build on.. thats my own preference, trying to avoid other markets to build on in order to avoid being dependant on correlation going ahead.. However using other markets for test builds have not produced better stats for me, in my research for NG.
Best degradation using market validation macro i have reached for NG was - 9% if i not remember incorrectly. This was building on years 2007- 2015 02 28

I am sure other people have reached better degradation numbers, but this is my best achieved number.

This was done some ago, and new methodology using WF stats was not introduced by Peter, hence only using market validation stats on for changes to evaluate each setting change..

Pic is from one of my live traded system on NG using 15min data, started live beginning 2019 with the system.

Quote: Originally posted by Daniel UK1

HI Sten, -9% degradation is the degradation between A and B training period, using macro market validation macro that i think can find in the macro folder. Market validation macro provides stats for IS and OOS degradation, and then two more OOS periods, depending on what you use as settings. I used this method for evaluating every little change and built 50k systems, and then in the end when i have narrowed down to perhaps 2-5 opt setups, i was doing the final WF stats methodology to validate my findings on these final setups, and making sure i ended up with the best one. However since some time back, i am doing WF stats according to Peters methodology for each and every change and 50k systems, which is taking much much more time, but i believe worth it in the end.

Quote: Originally posted by Sten

Quote: Originally posted by Daniel UK1   HI Sten, -9% degradation is the degradation between A and B training period, using macro market validation macro that i think can find in the macro folder. Market validation macro provides stats for IS and OOS degradation, and then two more OOS periods, depending on what you use as settings. I used this method for evaluating every little change and built 50k systems, and then in the end when i have narrowed down to perhaps 2-5 opt setups, i was doing the final WF stats methodology to validate my findings on these final setups, and making sure i ended up with the best one. However since some time back, i am doing WF stats according to Peters methodology for each and every change and 50k systems, which is taking much much more time, but i believe worth it in the end. I found "MarketValidationStats.gsbmacro" macro file in the GSB Data\Settings\Macros folder. However in recent build this macro is the same as "wf_stats5.gsbmacro" and "m3-wf_stats.gsbmacro". There is no difference in these files when I compare them byte to byte. I checked this on several machines to ensure I did not override macro code myself by accident (I believe there is some bug in GSB with macro saving which results in overriding macro file with the wrong code). And wf_stats5 macro does not provide IS to OOS comparision. As far as I understand how it works, it compares original equity curve using Training input parameters to the equity curve with input parameters from Walk Forward. And it does that for 3 different OOS date periods: - pre 2015-06-30 (OOS, B / A); - 2015-06-30 - 2018-02-28 (OOS, D / C); - 2018-02-28 - 2019-02-28 (OOS, F / E); So wf_stats5 macro from Peter's methodology only answers the question if WF helps to improve system performance on OOS data. It DOES NOT not compare IS to OOS metrics (if I understand correctly). And this is what really bothers me. As I am more interested in comparing OOS to IS degradation for the bunch of systems in order to assess the amount of curve fitting we've made during a system building process. And only after that, when I am relatively sure the build process does not produce curve fitted systems I can look at things like "if WF improves systems performance". So I need a way to compare OOS to IS degradation. Probably something like: build systems with "Nth Day Mode" set to NoTrd; save stats into Stats A; set "Nth Day Mode" to Trd; rebacktest; save stats into Stats B. Then look at the B / A degradation. This directly compares OOS and IS performance. But there are a number of questions, like should I do this for all 50000 generated systems or only for top 250? If only for top 250, I have to ensure the selection process does not use OOS data to select the best systems (currently it does as we set "Auto Nth Date Mode" All). Which date period to use (probably 1900 - 2015-06-30). E.t.c. I think something like this should be part of the methodology. Comments are appreciated.

Here is what I mean by saying wf_stats5 macro does not compare IS and OOS. Let's take a look at how wf_stats5 macro calculates Stats A and Stats B.



First it switches grid to Favorites D.
Then it sets Dates and Global Dates to 1900-01-01 - 2015-06-30. It also sets DatesMode to Trd. I.e. it uses our training period.

According to the methodology "Nth Day Mode" should be set to All, however macro does not set this explicitly. So we are using both IS and OOS data here from our training period (I am calling IS only data that GSB sees when it builds strategies, i.e. only "Nth Mode: NoTrd", when we start to gather stats from Nth Mode: All we contaminate our first OOS period making all data prior to 2015-06-30 effectively In-Sample, but that is another story). In the post above I incorrectly stated

"- Degradation "Walk-Forward with orig parameters" on OOS pre 2015 (B / A);"

we are actually using both IS and OOS data on this dates period. But what is critical to understand both Stats A and Stats B are calculated on all pre 2015-06-30 data, as we set Nth Mode: All and macro does not change this.

Anyway, macro sets date ranges to 1900-01-01 - 2015-06-30.
It then uses UseWfCurParams to set "Use WF Cur. Params." to False. Then does OverrideOriginalSettings to rebacktest systems using original system input parameters from training period.

Saves stats to Stats A.

Then macro turns on "Use WF Cur. Params." to True and rebacktests systems again.

Saves stats to Stats B.

My point is, what all these manipulations do, they compare system metrics by running a system on the same dates range but with different input parameters: first with original inputs from the build process on the training data (Stats A) then with inputs from the Walk-Forward test (Stats B).

The only difference between Stats A and Stats B is "Use WF Cur. Params." set to False for Stats A and "Use WF Cur. Params." set to True for Stats B.

So this test answers the question if Walk-Forward parameters improve system performance on a given dates range period. But wf_stats macro does not directly compare system performance on IS and on OOS data. And I think it is critical to measure that IS/OOS degradation in some way when building systems.


P.S. I wrote Peter e-mail asking to send me MarketValidationStats macro. I'll take a look at this macro, maybe it does what I need. I'm just surprised the current methodology does not have IS/OOS metrics comparision step.

The test with "Use WF Cur. Params." set to False/True seems to be very indirect way to check for the amount of curve fitting during system building process - who said that if Cur. Walk-Forward parameters improve system performance that equals to a less curve-fitted systems?

But this may be a way to go, I need to think more on this. At least this test can not be the only system robustness test we use.

Hi Sten, i see, i think we all have our own ways of testing robustness, for me validation on other markets in and outside of GSB, and as low degradation is most important together with as stable as possible WF parameters.. i am not sure that we all use in detail exactly the same methodology, however for myself i use Peters, but testing variations of it, trying to validate that my twists are better, but have not been able to do this yet though.. please see provided screenshot of what market vlidation macro will give you... this is not ES though..

System Parameters and Data2

Greetings, new GSB user here. Looking forward to catching up with all of you.

I have a question regarding the parameters I am seeing in some development runs I am attempting. I see Secondary Filter settings in the parameter list and I see that it is being applied to Data1. I have a Data2 in the configuration and would have expected this to apply to Data2. Do I misunderstand or have missed some setting?

Related, it appears that despite the Entry mode settings, the SF Entry mode has ability to use any available even though not enabled?

Quote: Originally posted by rterbush

Greetings, new GSB user here. Looking forward to catching up with all of you. I have a question regarding the parameters I am seeing in some development runs I am attempting. I see Secondary Filter settings in the parameter list and I see that it is being applied to Data1. I have a Data2 in the configuration and would have expected this to apply to Data2. Do I misunderstand or have missed some setting? Related, it appears that despite the Entry mode settings, the SF Entry mode has ability to use any available even though not enabled?

Optimization Best Practices

Quote: Originally posted by RandyT

And Peter, is that your approach to all markets then? 100% training and 1/80 nth?