Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
397 lines (233 loc) · 21.1 KB

data-analysis-plan.md

File metadata and controls

397 lines (233 loc) · 21.1 KB

ChatGPT

Great question—and thanks for the context files. Since you don’t want me to run anything yet, here’s a practical blueprint for how I’d set up the work so that, when your data is complete, the analysis is fast, reproducible, and answers the right questions.

0) Start with crisp questions you can test

From your notes, there are several specific, testable claims that a regression-style analysis can evaluate:

  1. Strategy quality overall. Claim: Alt26 (Fractional Pyramid) and Alt10 (Profit Targets) are the most consistently profitable across tickers. Test as strategy effects controlling for asset type/sector.
  2. Stocks vs ETFs (and sector effects). Claim: Individual stocks generally beat ETFs, except that Alt26/Alt10 work well on both; utilities underperform broadly. Test “asset_type × strategy” and “sector × strategy” interactions.
  3. Exit/management differences. Claim: Time exits (Alt9) work on individual growth stocks but fail on ETFs; Parabolic SAR (Alt22) shines in tech (QQQ) but fails in utilities; fractional sizing transforms ETF performance. Test targeted contrasts.
  4. Options suitability. Claim: Strategies with frequent exits (e.g., Alt10, Alt26) are better for options‑style holding periods. Use exit cadence proxies/labels you’ve documented.

Those map nicely to regression models with interactions and to simple, interpretable contrasts.

1) Data audit & tidy model table

Goal: produce a single, tidy table with one row per (strategy, ticker) backtest and clearly defined columns.

From your README, it sounds like analysis.csv already contains core fields like Return %, Profit Factor, Win Rate %, Max Drawdown %, Trade Count, a performance category, and an options‑suitability flag—plus there’s ancillary metadata in the docs. Plan to (a) verify and (b) normalize these into a consistent schema.

Important consistency check: your two docs state different commission settings (0.5% vs 0.005%). Reconcile this before modeling (or encode it as a covariate) so you’re not explaining away a settings mismatch.

Recommended columns (one row per strategy–ticker):

  • ticker, sector, asset_type (stock vs ETF)
  • strategy (Alt10, Alt26, …) and strategy features you’ve described: has_pyramiding, fractional_sizing, has_profit_targets, is_time_exit, is_SAR, uses_filters (ADX/EMA/Dual TF), typical_hold_weeks (from your notes)
  • Outcomes: total_return_pct, profit_factor, win_rate_pct, max_drawdown_pct, trades, category (very‑profitable/profitable/scratch/unprofitable)
  • Run settings: date range actually used for that backtest, commission, slippage (so results are comparable across rows)

Data hygiene to do before modeling

  • Validate that percentages are numeric and consistently scaled (e.g., 24.5 vs 0.245).
  • Confirm trades > 0; if some rows have zero trades (over‑filtering strategies), decide whether to keep them as explicit “fail to trigger” cases or exclude from return/PF models and analyze separately.
  • Create derived variables you’ll need:
    • log_pf = log(profit_factor) (PF > 0, log helps normality)
    • win_rate = win_rate_pct / 100
    • return_log1p = log(1 + total_return_pct/100) (stabilizes heavy‑tailed returns)

2) Descriptive “sanity” passes (no modeling yet)

Before regressions, build intuition:

  • Distribution plots for profit_factor, total_return_pct, win_rate, by strategy, colored by asset_type, faceted by sector.
  • Dumbbell or slope charts for stock vs ETF pairs within each strategy (is Alt26 really bridging the stock–ETF gap?).
  • Trade count vs performance scatterplots to see whether results are dominated by a small‑N effect (common with over‑filtered systems like ADX/Dual TF in some sectors).

This step protects you from fitting a nice‑looking model to a data glitch.

3) Core modeling (keep it simple, then add nuance)

Unit of analysis: (strategy, ticker) pair (panel data). Cluster sources of dependence: same ticker across strategies and same strategy across tickers.

3A) “How much better is each strategy, controlling for sector & asset type?”

  • Model: Linear mixed effects on log_pf (or return_log1p as a cross‑check).
    • Fixed effects: strategy, asset_type, sector, trades (centered).
    • Interactions: strategy × asset_type and (optionally) strategy × sector.
    • Random intercepts: (1 | ticker) to pool information within the same instrument; (1 | strategy) if you want conservative partial pooling across strategies.
  • Readout: Marginal means (EMMs) per strategy, plus contrasts such as Alt26–Alt15 (does fractional sizing beat single‑position?), Alt10–Alt9 (do profit targets beat time exits?), and sector‑specific effects (Alt22 in Tech vs Utilities).

3B) “What predicts being ‘profitable’ or ‘very profitable’?”

  • Model: Binomial GLM/GLMM using your categorical outcome.
    • Response: is_profitable = 1{category ∈ {profitable, very_profitable}} (or a 4‑level ordinal model if you prefer).
    • Predictors: strategy, asset_type, sector, trades, key interactions (e.g., strategy × asset_type).
    • Random intercepts: (1 | ticker).
  • Why: This tests broad claims like “76% success for Alt26/Alt10” after controlling for where the strategy is used.

3C) “Win rate analysis with denominators”

If trades is available, model wins out of trades with a binomial (or beta‑binomial) GLM:

  • Compute (or back out) wins ≈ round(win_rate * trades).
  • Model: wins ~ Binomial(trades, p) with logit link; predictors as above.
  • Why: This respects differing sample sizes across strategies (a 60% win on 10 trades ≠ 60% on 300).

Transform choices: – PF is strictly positive ⇒ log_pf. – Returns are heavy‑tailed ⇒ return_log1p. – Win rates are proportions ⇒ binomial/Beta regression.

4) Targeted hypothesis tests (the “story” claims)

Encode the specific claims as contrasts in the models above:

  • Pyramiding helps ETFs. Contrast Alt26 vs Alt15 within asset_type = ETF. Expect Alt26 ≫ Alt15.
  • Time exits fail on ETFs but work on stocks. Contrast Alt9 within ETFs vs within stocks (interaction should be large & negative for ETFs, positive for stocks).
  • SAR is tech‑specific. Compare Alt22 in Tech vs Utilities.
  • Utilities underperform universally. Sector main effect for Utilities should be negative across strategies; also examine strategy × sector to confirm “no safe harbor” for utilities.

Keep p‑values in perspective—this is exploratory research with many comparisons—so favor effect sizes with uncertainty intervals and use Benjamini–Hochberg FDR where you must control discovery rate.

5) Validation & robustness

  • Leave‑one‑ticker‑out and leave‑one‑sector‑out refits to see if your inferences hinge on any single instrument.
  • Settings sensitivity: if some rows used different date ranges/commission/slippage (your docs suggest variance), include those as covariates or run standardized re‑fits.
  • Outcome swaps: repeat the core model on return_log1p and on the profitability indicator to confirm conclusions aren’t an artifact of PF only.

6) Options‑trader lens (making “suitability” measurable)

You already describe typical hold times and exit cadence per strategy (e.g., Alt10 exits at 3N/6N/9N; Alt26 scales out; Alt9 forces 40‑bar exits). Encode this as a small strategy‑level feature table you can join to the panel:

  • typical_hold_weeks (ordinal/binned), exit_cadence = frequent / moderate / infrequent, scale_out = yes/no.
  • Then, in a profitability GLM, include these features (instead of raw strategy labels) to ask: “Do frequent‑exit strategies have higher probability of profit on ETFs/stocks after controlling for sector?”

This turns qualitative guidance for options traders into testable, general statements.

7) What I’d deliver from that first pass

  • One tidy CSV/Parquet (clean schema + data dictionary).
  • EDA pack: 6–8 charts showing core distributions and the stock–ETF story.
  • Two model summaries (PF and profitability), with 4–6 prespecified contrasts answering the claims above, each with effect size & CI.
  • A 1‑page executive readout: “What wins, where, and by how much.”

8) Pitfalls to avoid (and how this plan mitigates them)

  • Non‑independence: same ticker tested across many strategies ⇒ cluster (random intercepts) by ticker.
  • Over‑filtering / zero‑trade rows: analyze them explicitly in a binomial model or as a separate “trigger rate” outcome.
  • Settings drift: commission/date‑range inconsistencies across runs ⇒ include settings or standardize runs before inference.
  • Multiple comparisons: pre‑declare the core contrasts; show effect sizes with intervals; use FDR if needed.
  • Over‑controlling: don’t put PF and its components (e.g., win rate) in the same regression—treat them as separate outcomes.

9) If you want a minimal “starter spec” for later

(Plain‑English formulas you can translate to Python/R when the data is final.)

  • PF model (mixed effects): log_pf ~ strategy + asset_type + sector + trades_c + strategy:asset_type + (1 | ticker)
  • Profitability model (GLMM): is_profitable ~ strategy + asset_type + sector + trades_c + strategy:asset_type + (1 | ticker)
  • Win‑rate model (binomial with denominators): cbind(wins, trades - wins) ~ strategy + asset_type + sector + (1 | ticker)

Then extract estimated marginal means and the specific contrasts listed in §4.

Why this is the right “place to begin”

It keeps you focused on answering your concrete claims with simple, explainable models; it makes the CSV analysis reproducible; and it builds in the guardrails (clustering, interactions, settings checks) you’ll need to avoid false confidence. Most importantly, nothing here requires heavy data science to interpret—each coefficient maps to a “how much better/worse and where” statement that aligns with the narrative you’ve already captured in your notes.

If you’d like, I can turn this into a short, pre‑wired notebook template (empty cells, no execution) that drops in your finalized analysis.csv and produces the deliverables above with one run when you’re ready.

Claude

I'll take a look at what you're working with to give you some thoughtful guidance on where to start.Based on what you've got here, I'd approach this systematically. Here's where I'd begin:

1. Clarify Your Research Questions First

Before touching any regression tools, you need to nail down what you're actually trying to predict or explain. Some natural candidates from your data:

  • Predict profitability: What characteristics make a strategy-security combination profitable? (dependent variable: Result_% or binary profitable/unprofitable)
  • Explain risk-adjusted returns: What drives Profit Factor or Sharpe-like metrics?
  • Predict trade frequency: What determines whether a strategy generates enough trades for options trading?
  • Explain drawdown: What factors lead to lower Max_DD_%?

2. Feature Engineering - Extract the Hidden Variables

Your CSV has the outcomes, but the markdown files have the characteristics. You'd want to create additional columns like:

Strategy characteristics:

  • Exit mechanism (profit targets, time-based, trailing stops, etc.)
  • Has pyramiding (yes/no)
  • Uses filters (ADX, EMA, dual timeframe, etc.)
  • Position sizing method
  • Risk per trade

Security characteristics:

  • Sector (technology, healthcare, utilities, etc.)
  • Asset type (individual stock vs. ETF)
  • Historical volatility profile
  • Trending vs. mean-reverting tendency (you note utilities fail, energy mean-reverts)

Interaction terms:

  • Strategy type × sector
  • Exit mechanism × asset volatility

3. Data Quality Check Before Any Modeling

Given your note that the work isn't complete:

  • Missing data: Check which strategy-security combinations are still untested
  • Outliers: That Alt2-CAT result (+24.53% with 16.77 PF on only 11 trades) screams "investigate me"
  • Zero-trade scenarios: Alt2 has several securities with 0 trades - these can't be modeled the same way
  • Dependent observations: Same strategy tested across securities isn't fully independent (strategy characteristics are shared)

4. Exploratory Analysis First (Essential!)

Before regression, you'd want to:

  • Correlation matrix: Which metrics move together? (Win_Rate_% and Profit_Factor probably correlate)
  • Scatter plots: Result_% vs. Trades, Max_DD_% vs. Win_Rate_%, etc.
  • Grouped summaries: Average performance by sector, by strategy, by asset type
  • Distribution checks: Are your outcomes normally distributed or skewed?

5. Regression Approach Based on Your Questions

If predicting continuous outcomes (Result_%, Profit_Factor):

  • Start with multiple linear regression
  • Check assumptions (linearity, homoscedasticity, normality of residuals)
  • Consider log transformations if Profit_Factor is skewed
  • Account for clustering (same strategy across securities) with mixed effects models

If predicting categories (Profitable/Unprofitable, Options_Suitable):

  • Use logistic regression for binary outcomes
  • Consider multinomial regression for Performance_Category
  • Calculate odds ratios to interpret "how much does X increase odds of success"

If you suspect non-linear relationships:

  • Polynomial terms (e.g., trades² to capture diminishing returns)
  • Decision trees/random forests to identify interaction effects
  • These are less "pure regression" but might reveal which strategy features matter most

6. Key Variables I'd Prioritize Testing

Dependent variables (what you're trying to explain):

  • Result_% (most obvious)
  • Profit_Factor (better for risk-adjusted view)
  • Options_Suitable (binary - very practical)

Independent variables (predictors):

  • Strategy_Has_Profit_Targets (seems critical from your docs)
  • Sector_Type (categorical)
  • Individual_Stock_vs_ETF (binary)
  • Strategy_Trade_Frequency_Category (low/medium/high)
  • Sector_Trending_Score (you could rate utilities=1, healthcare=10)

7. Watch Out For These Traps

  • Overfitting: With only 10 strategies, don't create too many predictor variables
  • Data leakage: Don't use Performance_Category to predict Result_% (it's derived from Result_%)
  • Multicollinearity: If two predictors are highly correlated (e.g., "has profit targets" and "low drawdown"), regression coefficients become unstable
  • Small sample bias: 210 observations sounds like a lot, but if you're modeling 20+ features, it's not

The Practical Starting Point

If I were you, I'd begin with something simple and interpretable:

Research Question: "What predicts whether a strategy-security combination will be profitable?"

Model: Logistic regression with:

  • Dependent: Binary (Profitable = Result_% > 5%)
  • Predictors:
    • Strategy type (categorical: profit targets, time exit, pyramiding, etc.)
    • Sector (categorical)
    • Stock vs ETF (binary)
    • Strategy trade count (continuous)

This would tell you things like "having profit targets increases odds of profitability by 3.2x, controlling for sector" or "utilities decrease odds of success by 85%."

Once that baseline model works, you can get fancier with interactions, non-linear terms, or more sophisticated dependent variables.

Final thought: Given your "sectors matter more than you think" findings, I'd bet that interaction terms (strategy × sector) will be significant. Your Alt31 SPY success but multi-sector failure is exactly the kind of pattern regression can quantify.

Want me to elaborate on any of these steps?

Gemini

This is an excellent question, and you're right to think about methodology first. Running analysis on incomplete or un-prepped data can lead to misleading conclusions.

If I were to begin this analysis, my first step wouldn't be regression itself, but rather Data Preparation and Feature Engineering. This is the process of making the raw data "speak the same language" as the contextual insights in your markdown files.

Here is the step-by-step approach I would take.

1. Data Cleaning and Parsing

Your analysis.csv file is formatted as a human-readable report, not a simple data table. It contains two distinct tables separated by "===" and multiple header lines.

  • Action: I would first use Python to read the file and parse only the first section, "STRATEGY PERFORMANCE SUMMARY - ALL SECURITIES".
  • Goal: The output would be a clean DataFrame where each row is a single backtest and each column is a metric (e.g., Strategy, Security, Result_%, Profit_Factor, etc.).

2. Feature Engineering (The Most Critical Step)

This is where I would integrate the "context" from your README.md and DISCOVERIES_AND_LEARNINGS.md files. A regression model can't read markdown; we have to translate those concepts into new columns (features) in our table.

Based on your files, I would create:

  • A Sector Column: Your DISCOVERIES file explicitly links assets to sectors (e.g., "Healthcare sector: XLV/UNH", "Tech mega-caps: MSFT/GOOGL", "Industrial cycles: CAT"). I would map each Security in the CSV to its proper sector.
  • A Strategy_Type Column: Your files describe the nature of the strategies. I would map the names (e.g., Alt26, Alt10) to their descriptions (e.g., "Fractional Pyramid", "Profit Targets").
  • An Asset_Class Column: I would classify each Security as either "Stock" (like MSFT, CAT) or "ETF" (like SPY, XLV).

After this step, a raw row that looks like this:

Strategy Security Result_% ...
Alt26 XLV +33.5% ...

Would be enriched to look like this:

Strategy Security Result_% ... Sector Strategy_Type Asset_Class
Alt26 XLV +33.5% ... Healthcare Fractional Pyramid ETF

3. Defining the Analytical Questions

Now that the data is prepped, I can frame the "regression (or similar)" questions. The goal is to statistically prove the qualitative observations from your markdown files.

Here’s where I would start:

Analysis 1: Multiple Linear Regression (To Predict Performance)

This is the classic regression you mentioned. I would try to predict a numerical outcome.

  • Question: "Which factors have the biggest quantitative impact on performance?"
  • Model: Profit_Factor ~ $C + \beta_1 \cdot \text{Strategy_Type} + \beta_2 \cdot \text{Sector} + \beta_3 \cdot \text{Max_DD_%}$
  • Why: This would tell us, for example, "Using the 'Fractional Pyramid' (Alt26) strategy adds, on average, 0.45 to the Profit_Factor, holding all other factors constant." It would validate the "WINNING STRATEGIES" executive summary.

Analysis 2: Logistic Regression (To Predict Suitability)

Your data has a perfect "Yes/No" column: Options_Suitable. This is a classification problem, and logistic regression is ideal.

  • Question: "What drives a strategy to be 'Options Suitable'?"
  • Model: $\text{P}(\text{Options_Suitable} = \text{"Yes"}) \sim f(\text{Strategy_Type}, \text{Win_Rate_%}, \text{Max_DD_%})$
  • Why: Your DISCOVERIES file qualitatively states Alt26 is perfect for options because of "Regular profit-taking" and "Low drawdowns." This analysis would quantitatively prove it. The output might be: "For every 1% decrease in Max_DD_%, a strategy is 1.2x more likely to be 'Options Suitable'."

Analysis 3: ANOVA (To Compare Groups)

Before a full regression, a simpler "Analysis of Variance" (ANOVA) would be a great start.

  • Question: "Is there a statistically significant difference in average performance between strategy types?"
  • Why: This directly tests your main finding. It would answer: "Is the average Profit_Factor of 'Fractional Pyramid' (Alt26) truly higher than all other strategies, or could the difference be due to random chance?" This is a robust way to confirm your winners.

In summary: The starting point is to enrich the raw analysis.csv data by translating the qualitative context from your .md files into new, analyzable columns (features). Only then can you run meaningful regression models to statistically validate the excellent insights you've already discovered.