Search results

I was thinking of the guys who are constantly obsessing over drawdowns or trying to set the perfect stop to prevent any loss ever. Anybody that scared of ever losing a trade shouldn't be a trader. There is no holy grail so everybody, including the success stories, will have losing trades...

Surf says he doesn't believe in trends, so he makes this ridiculous comparison to coin flips as a putdown. Repeatedly.

You can't treat assets like they're coordinates. If you want to switch off trading between two assets, then look into pairs trading, of which there is an abundance of literature.

You've pretty much just repeated what I already said. If you have a breakeven system, using a fixed bet size gets you nowhere on average and using a fractional bet size actually loses you ground in the long run. So the system has to be tweaked or replaced to get a new system with positive...

If it was as simple as "reversing" a losing system to turn it into a winner, we'd all be rich. You can't reverse commissions and slippages, for starters. And breakeven systems cannot be made profitable. Consider the simple coin flip. This is a breakeven system IF you use a fixed bet size...

The good news is that trend following is profitable. The better news is that most traders, evidently including all the previous posters in this thread, have no freaking clue how to find a real trend. Good luck with your MA crossovers, random entries or whatever.

I'm a Kelly trader, and the fact is that Kelly sizing will not turn a losing system into a winning system. If a trader can't make a system profitable with a fixed trade size, there is no fractional sizing scheme that will do the trick. So says the math. So the title of this thread is...

Sounds like the voice of experience. In my case, it's just a period. I tried to delete the thread but this website being what it is, that option was denied to me. I couldn't even change the title, but I could and did replace the very harsh original content with a period. Toning things...

.

Perhaps every trading book ever written makes or implies audacious claims. The only trading book(s) that don't fall short of such claims provide actual performance data that the method(s) within the pages actually work. You can probably number such books on one hand. Stop looking for some...

Threads like this one are a waste. If someone tells you, yes, automated systems work, you'll ask for evidence. If someone tells you, no, ATSs never work, you'll ask for evidence. Why should anyone give you the evidence you desperately seek? That won't do a thing for their bottom line...

No, you are seriously projecting, imbecile.

No, L is loss, not risk. Risk is what you determine before you trade. Loss is what happens after you trade.

No the expectation per risked dollar is p*W - q*L. The SPS is different.

Lotteries are a tax on the mathematically impaired. :p

The current breakeven jackpot for a $2 powerball play is $287,281,536. By the time you add in taxes and the whole cash-versus-annuity nonsense (I want cash!), it probably doesn't make sense to buy in before the jackpot hits $400M. The recent jackpot had a lumpsum of $221M so no sale. The...

You missed the point. If Cramer is such a genius, why was he praising Nails? At some point these "gurus" have to be held responsible for their bull. It doesn't matter how much you like them.

I don't know what you mean by IR. But let's assume it's a typo and you meant SR = Sharpe ratio. SPS[+10, +10, +10, +10] = infinity SPS[+10, +30, +30, +10] = infinity SR[+10, +10, +10, +10] = infinity SR[+10, +30, +30, +10] = 2 Oops!! How's that for a demonstration of...

I don't know what you're measuring but it's not SPS so please stop calling it SPS. Wouldn't hurt to show your work either.

The theory should be obvious based on what I've posted. The SPS is the Kelly ratio multiplied by the average winning trade return. A logical trader wants both of those to be as high as possible, so increasing either increases the SPS value. I chose the LessBad Kelly formula for ease of...