@Rajendra Manke

Nope, I'm not mixing investing with trading. There are 3 options available in Momentify - Investing, Trading & Mutual Funds.

In Algostra, I understand the logic behind having a max loss and target profit, but I'm asking if these can be made non-mandatory to create the algo - atleast not the target profit part which would eventually interfere with any trend following trading system as it will automatically square off all open positions when realized + unrealized profit crosses a limit.

In algostra, under strategy management, we need to mention No of Trades, Max Loss and Max profit.
Why is this limitation in the system required and can it be made optional?

My strategies handle the SL at each trade level and there is no target profit, so mentioning these values limits the effectiveness.

Momentify doesn't require these fields, but it needs manual trade scan and execution. So can this limitation be removed from Algostra?

@Definedge

The momentify section is still not available in momentum trading backtesting. When will this be enabled?

In the analytics section of each momentify strategy, please also consider providing the following for better understanding of the real-time performance of the strategy

• performance graph since the start of the strategy
• relative performance to key indices e.g. Nifty 50, Nifty 500, Nifty MidSmallCap - these could be turned on or off

These will help to give a good idea about the absolute and relative performance of the strategy. Similar can be added to portfolio level as well.

It will help to keep the analytics within Definedge tools, otherwise we will need to export and find other ways of achieving this.

yes this is a question I have as well. my momentify portfolio also holds MCX and it shows up as blocked, however the stock action (Split) has already been completed.
If I sell it manually via zone, I would be able to - I'd done this a few months ago with another similar situaiton.
So why does Momentify still show it as "Blocked"?

@Yogesh Kumar
I hope definedge team clarifies on this issue.

However in my opinion, if in your strategy, you have specified 20 stocks in portfolio, my understanding is that 20 will be the maximum holdings. If there are less than 20 stocks which satisfy all the filter criteria, then your portfolio will feature less holdings.

I've not yet faced this situation, but I guess it can be checked against the Momentum Investing Scanner, at the same time as Momentify Basket is generated - ideally both should be same or similar with minor differences.

In Momentify, the strategy Unrealized P&L is calculated based on CMP, whereas for the same holdings, in RZone dashboard and also in the Zone Web+App, the Unrealized P&L is calculated based on LTP.

This results in a discrepancy in the Unrealized P&L shown in Momentify vs in Rzone and Zone.

Since both are provided by Definedge, please standardize the Unrealized P&L calculation across all your applications.

Standardization of such calculations reflect the attention to detail by the development and testing teams.

@Yogesh-Patil , When you click on the "Positions" button of your Momentify strategy, you should see a list of your positions and on each one there is a "sell" button like I see in my momentify login.

Is this button not visible? It should work only during market hours, but it should work. I've not tried it yet though.

From a personal point of view, the best practice for any system based investing, is to follow the rules of the system, and not deviate much, otherwise the backtesting will be irrelevant if we interfere with the system based on subjective views.

@Rohit Seth did you try using Double Moving Average condition in system builder e.g.,

@Rajendra Manke Nifty 750 list in Investing scanner is probably Nifty Total Market, which is the common name for that index

i concluded that it translates to 20, 20, 3 after manual observation.

@Saju-Raj & @Rajendra-Manke
I ran the same parameters on Nifty 500 group. Posting the results below so all who're viewing this thread get the correct backtest results.

Its still a very good strategy, with a controlled drawdown, just not as good as with the Nifty 500 Multicap group. Needs to be tested in different periods though, longer periods as well.

Longer period backtests result in significantly higher drawdowns of 20%+.

@Saju-Raj thanks for bringing this up. I spent some time on the weekend on the strategy shared, and was wondering why results on the Nifty 500 Multicap 50-25-25 were so different than the regular Nifty 500 group - the stocks should be the same. This explains it.

@Prashant-Shah
Since all the different groups and indices are available for backtesting, Please could the team do 1 of the below options

• allow only the groups which are free of survivorship bias for backtesting
• share a list of all the groups which are free of survivorship bias so that users can select accordingly.

This will help members backtest on correct data, otherwise they will be misled by the results.

@Prashant-Shah thanks for the clarification.

Since all the different groups and indices are available for backtesting, Please could the team do 1 of the below options

• allow only the groups which are free of survivorship bias for backtesting
• share a list of all the groups which are free of survivorship bias

This will help members backtest on correct data, otherwise they will be misled by the results.

@Rajendra Manke these are excellent results sir, and I hope its profitable for you. Your maximum draw down is already under control.
I need to learn P&F now in order to understand how this strategy works.
thanks for sharing

@Yogesh Kumar Yes, I saw your post as well, thanks for testing it against your real portfolio.

I am now struggling to get convinced to invest in the platform more until there's clarity around this aspect and the support team has not been responding.

@Rajendra Manke At this point I don't have screenshots of the criteria, just my notes on each and both the criteria notes have the same parameter values.

I doubt thats it, because these backtests were executed within a span of 2 weeks. So I can expect minor differences, but over a backtest period of 9 years, the huge difference is concerning.

I'm running into a consistency issue with my backtesting that's making it hard to trust the results.

I've been backtesting a weekly strategy, tracking all my parameters (index, backtest period, filters, market trend filter, etc.) in a spreadsheet along with results, screenshots, and CSV file export.

The problem is when I rerun the exact same backtest a few days or weeks later using identical parameters, I'm getting completely different results.

This is a problem because if backtest results re not reproducible, then I cannot rely on them.

For example, I tested a specific parameters set a couple of weeks ago and got the below results.

When I ran the same backtest parameters again today, I got a completely different result!

@Alpha-Trader - This is an interesting observation, please could you provide an example, so that I can compare with the back-testing that I'm also doing.
@Definedge please take note and clarify on this issue.

Can you please throw some light on this? I checked all the documentation available on definedge on momentify and a few of the videos and this is not explained clearly.
I need to know what is occuring on the market trend filter and be able to plot it on a chart in order to get appropriate confidence in the system.

In the Market Trend Filter, there is only 1 value that can be provided for MAST filter (default = 20). Whereas when we plot the MAST Indicator on a chart, it provides 3 values, 2 for supertrend and 1 for the MA.

So in the market trend filter, what does the MAST default value = 20 indicate? Does it equal to 20, 10, 3 or 20, 20, 3 for the plotted MAST Indicator on chart?

this is an excellent suggestion, and will be very useful for us in backtesting. Please consider!

Please add fortnightly rebalancing for portfolio in the rotational investing and trading systems.

This will ensure a good mid-point between both the weekly and monthly rebalancing options.

do you have any entry or exit criteria specified via system builder? When going into backtesting details, I found that the SB exits coincided on charts with exit criteria I specified in system builder (SB). So I assume thats the reason for exits.

Hi,

Currently the market trend filter has useful features but is very limited in the variations that can be implemented.

Please provide system builder conditions in market trend filters as well, so that users can create custom market trend filters.

This will greatly enhance the market trend filter usefulness and flexibility for users to customize as per their strategy.

@Somu R It's similar to the strategies used for Momentify i.e. pick a lookback period

For this lookback period, the stocks/etf's are ranked in descending order of relative strength. I use Nifty 50 as a benchmark due to simplicity, but CNX500 or Nifty MidSmall Cap 400 can also be used.

Momentify gives options of Return Percent, Volar, Sharpe & RSI. What i'm requesting is to add Relative Strength to this criteria.
There are already RS screeners on R Zone, so the metrics are available in the tool anyway.

Definedge has an excellent resource to learn more about RS - https://shelf.definedgesecurities.com/category/relative-strength-studies/index-relative-strength-studies/

@Prashant Shah Can this type of filter be applied to ETF's as well? Some ETF's do not have enough liquidity and on couple of days per week open at Upper/Lower circuit.

Please add Relative Strength (RS) as a rank criteria in Momentify and for the Momentum Investing Scanner Simulator.

For the last 2 years I have been using an RS-ranked rotational strategy and would like to move that to Momentify platform.

Hello,

I'm backtesting a momentum investing strategy which uses the ALL-ONE ETF's group as explained by Prashant Sir on video.

I understand that Sir explained on Indices, historic constituents are considered to eliminate survivorship bias during backtesting.

Similarly, what I would like to know is, does the ETF backtest consider the historic constituents of the ALL-ONE ETF's group?
For e.g., I'm doing the backtest for the period 01-01-2020 to 31-08-2025. Currently the group has 54 ETF's. It's possible that on 01-01-2020 there were say only, 10 ETF's in this group due to liquidity etc. since its a manually curated group.

So in the strategy execution on 01-01-2020 will the backtest consider only the 10 ETF's which were part of the group on the backtest period, or will it consider all the 54 ETF's which are currently included in the ALL-ONE ETF's group?

Hi,

I would like to add a condition to system builder strategy which checks if current price is at least 30% above its 52 week (or 252 day) low.

I tried this with the High-low retracement indicator, but the inputs for the indicator are confusing.

• If I have to specify Percent, then what is the purpose of Retracement Percent? Do both values need to be same?
• What does breakout mean here? Does a value of 252 means that it will check 30% retracement above 252 day low?

Hi,

I want to create a scanner in system builder where
Daily RSI(14) ABOVE 55 (0 CANDLE)
AND
WEEKLY RSI(14) ABOVE 55 ( 0 CANDLE)

I did not find any option to select timeframe of individual conditions in system builder. How to achieve this kind of scan?