### SMA(30)/SMA(45) combination, 2 dimensional case beats the 1 dimensional cases

Recently, I was advised that instead of using Moving Averages that are far apart (like 20/180), a combination where the moving averages are close to each other may prove more useful.

For that I test the combination of SMA(30)/SMA(45) pairs.

You can convince yourself, that the crossing of the SMA(30)/SMA(45) happens faster than the crossing of SMA(20)/SMA(180),

therefore this new version can react to changing market quicker.

Test:

- only MA(30): winLoseRatios Arithmetic Mean:
**51.45%**, stdev: 5.28%, avgBarGainPercent mean: 0.08%, stdev: 0.28%,**projCAGR: 4.21%*****p_test: 2502 - only MA(45): winLoseRatios Arithmetic Mean:
**52.07%**, stdev: 4.91%, avgBarGainPercent mean: 0.07%, stdev: 0.28%,**projCAGR: 3.74%*****p_test: 2947 - MA(30)/MA(45): winLoseRatios Arithmetic Mean:
**53.55%**, stdev: 4.24%, avgBarGainPercent mean: 0.17%, stdev: 0.29%,**projCAGR: 9.41%*****p_test: 2500

Conclusions:

1.

This is an example in which the 1 dimensional cases were not successful, but combining 2 1 dimensional NN into a **2 dimensional NN improved the result**.

In a previous post, I said that combining 2 dimensions didn’t improve the result.

Here is the example when it improved; so ignore please that previous blog post.

2.

So far the **SMA(30)/SMA(45) combination is one of our best results**.

It beats the SMA(20)/SMA(180) version by about 1%.

The SMA(20)/SMA(180): winLoseRatios Arithmetic Mean: 53.66%, projCAGR: 8.56%

SMA(30)/SMA(45): winLoseRatios Arithmetic Mean: 53.55%, projCAGR: 9.41%

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

## No Responses Yet to “SMA(30)/SMA(45) combination, 2 dimensional case beats the 1 dimensional cases”