Search results

Have reasonable expactations. It's better to make just a $3,000-$4,000 a month instead of chasing $20,000 a month only to end up broke. Make $150-$200 a day and you will do fine. Making that much is not necessarilly that tough with an appropriate plan and self-discipline, but I agree that it...

Check out Jack Schwager books on futures, I don't mean the popular ones, but his more meaty books on futures, such as 'A complete guide to the futures markets'.

I am sorry to hear that. I think that there is only one solution: trading purely mechanically. It works. Some systems do not require more entries than one a day or even one every few days and still can make you money. I believe it is better to make little than to lose consistently. Let...

Good entries are so important for nitro because, as far as I understand, he is a scalper. For the rest of us, exits are even more important and the best entry is the one that also tells you when you should exit, that is when you are certainly wrong and perhaps should even reverse your position...

Can be as advanced as you want to make it and is very inexpensive.

If you use a mechanical system with a trailing stop-loss then trading is much less an emotional activity and in fact can be pretty boring. And you can even papertrade it after the market closes, it's just a matter of sticking to some mechanical rules and the simpler they are the better. In fact...

Frankly, piramiding and risk management sound a bit self-contradictory to me, so I would also like to know how to do this safely. Not that I have a real need to do so right now, but just curious.

Why stop at getting the said book? Larry Williams commented on Gallagher's allegations. This can be found on the web somewhere. Better yet do some search on this board to get links to what Williams had to say about all these allegations. To me the fact that so many are so eager to dismiss...

How about you sharing some ideas with us? I have the book, but not the software, did not read it though, at least not much...

I believe it's good to combine systems of different characteristics. I do agree that a higher percentage of wins is not necessarilly indicative of a superior system, but it's good to have systems that have both decent win/loss ratio (say, 1.5 or so) and decent percentage of winners (say 50%)...

Would you not love to be a victim of such an accident?:D :)

That is true and in fact sometimes that means simply unjustified prejudices. It is better to have justified prejudices. One of my systems had a bad drawdown in 2001 about which I learned after I started using it. But I have chosen it based on other criteria and the fact that it peformed well in...

In the formula for the expectation you have two distributions: the frequency of wins ands losses and the size of wins and losess. They are independent, for the same frequency you can have different sizes, because the frequency does not determine the size and vice versa. Because of that you...

Of course, they can, that's simple arithmetics. I guess, acrary showed that too in some example. You can have an infinite number of different (win, loss) distributions that lead to the same expectation value.

That's what I thought too. Darn, why I am not a psycho, it seems to be so cool to be one, at least judging by the posts above...:D On the other hand killing just because of a phone number... you must be a psycho too... anyway, she was a psycho, no matter what her motivation was...

I agree, have parameters like that in two of my systems, the third one is different, but it still has a very nice equity curve, or rather has had for over 12 months with a very shallow dip only in one of those months. But in 2001 the equity curve was not so pretty.

It takes at least two intact brain cells to get this thing installed. Obviously beyond him...

And the quotes are RT? I guess not, perhaps I am wrong, but I once looked into that and got discouraged. I guess it was because the quotes were delayed and since my charts were RT trading this way was just plainly stupid. Maybe this was not that, so correct me if I am wrong.

and so it's good to diversify among systems or setups. Is it yet another thread to prove that there is something wrong with a purely probablistic game without saying the dirty word 'probability'? Once you realize that the game is probabilistic in nature, you should not expect to win it all...

Relax, dude. That's the reason I am still running it, because I know a lot about it. Otherwise I would not be able to optimize it.