Thanks to all of you for your comments and encouragement. You have given me much to consider. I will try it for a few more months and see if I can make more progress.
I will definitely study your trading system, Mr. @hemmerling, and see how it is different from what I have been doing. You wrote "One good trading system can make all the difference and keep you going while you discover others. " I certainly would like to find such a system, and perhaps the one you provided would be a good start.
Mr. @test_user, thanks for your inputs. I initially started out trying to build simple systems. Just prior to joining P123 I read the book Quantitative Momentum by Wes Gray and Jack Vogel, the folks at Alpha Architect. I set out to test their ideas. I started with P123’s Core Momentum strategy and adding a “Frog in the Pan” component, I was able to get a slight increase in performance, but nothing to brag about. I got sidetracked next with reading about how to test systems, a necessary but premature step. Next I read a post by Mr. @Whycliffes who mentioned that he had a system that had 80 nodes in it and looking to add more (“What I have been working on has 80 nodes”) and Mr. Yuval mentioning that “I’ve always said, the more nodes the better, as long as they make good financial sense.” (see Extreme number of nodes (300)– does it damage the ranking system? for both quotes.) So I decided to try to add lots of nodes, Later I read the thread that mentioned the file I referenced in my initial post above (see Ranking your ranking systems - #10 by sraby). So I figured that the best way (for me at least) to develop a trading system that simply added one factor after another. I had sorted the spreadsheet based on the column titled “avg top 5 buckets” (column AE). What made me take so long was that I ran each factor individually over 6 stock universes and 3 different “Rank < X” rules, making 18 combinations. I documented each one individually. It thus took me a LONG time. Finally, after doing 60 factors and not having a better performing system than simply using an ordinary P123 core ranking system, I decided that it was time for a change and come here and post my feelings.
Please note that I am not blaming either Mr. @Whycliffes or Mr. @yuvaltaylor for making me build a system with a lot of nodes in it. Instead, I recognized that I, with a pre-algebra financial education, was seeing two smart users with Mr. @yuvaltaylor definitely having and Mr. @Whycliffes possibly having, the “differential equations” level of financial education. By using that spreadsheet, which I thought was based on individual factors rated well for financial performance, I had hoped to produce a ranking system that better performed. As to whether it has many nodes or few, I don’t care so long as it performs better than the market with (hopefully) lower drawdowns. (I prefer fewer node as I with my pre-algebra financial education will have a better chance of understanding it.)
Mr. @Jrinne, what you have suggested makes a lot of sense, even to me with a pre-algebra financial education. I will try that on different systems and see what happens. FWIW, in response to one of your posts you made a few months back, I posted what was meant to be humorous that I wish Sabine Hossenfelder was here to translate your post for me. I quickly deleted the post as I thought the joke got in the way of the discussion. But I wish she (look her up on YouTube) or someone like her would explain to me many of your posts. And I mean that as an immense compliment.
Mr. @WERNER, thank you for your encouraging words. I am glad to know that I am not the only person who took awhile to learn the system.
Thanks again to all.
Cary