Search results

:( He was a good man. Rest in peace, Mr. Walker.

That's not martingaling. What you did was scale in or pyramid in to an existing trade in the anticipation that your dip is a retracement rather than a reversal. Martingaling is where you exit a trade because it is a loser but then you increase the size (typically double) of the next trade...

Definitely a bullshitter. The guy is asked how to make martingaling work and he goes off on a tangent about chart patterns. Wtf. Where are these mooks who can't distinguish strategy from money management coming from?

+1 Unfortunately trading systems aren't as reliable as many gambling games which have set probabilities. We only know our winrate from empirical test results. And if we suffer 8 losses in a row, it may just be chance given our historical winrate or it may be an actual deterioration in our...

LOL! Priceless. :D I nominate this for Most Useless Post of the Quarter. P.S. Welcome to my ignore list.

It has zero risk of ruin if you have an infinite trading account, which pretty much defeats the point of trading in the first place. This conversation is just silly. The math is the math, and either one understands it or one doesn't. Clearly you don't. When I first joined this website I...

Random entries and exits means zero expectation. Add in commissions and you have negative expectation. There is no money management method in the universe that will turn negative expectation into positive expectation. In fact the best money management says to avoid all trading scenarios...

Wtf is a "random entry money management strategy"? And if you think money management is the foundation of trading strategy, you clearly don't understand what's going on in trading. Trading strategy is about timing. In other words, trading strategy is about WHEN to enter trades and WHEN...

Martingale is for the mathematically impaired. You're not the first guy to think he's smarter than the math. Say hello to LTCM when you end up in whatever oblivion they landed in.

I don't buy it. For centuries people put up with pounds, shillings, pence, farthings and all that nonsense. Not so long ago US stocks were only sold in eighths of a dollar. Seems to me decimals are a welcome relief to all that silliness.

Read the first paragraph of Baron's post. Sports betting and baseball cards are not financial instruments. Besides the liquidity in collectibles like baseball cards is for shit.

Some traders just can't accept a loss. They see it as a character flaw rather than an inevitable part of an imperfect strategy (which all real strategies are). So they martingale hoping to avoid a small loss and eventually end up taking a huge one. Just evolution at work in the trading...

That makes the system quality unconditionally dependent on the number of trades, which doesn't make sense. I devised the System Achievement Score to get around that flaw. SAS == 4*k*max[ 0, E ]*PF*min[ 1, N/mant ] , where SAS is the System Achievement Score, k is the...

If trades formed a Gaussian distribution, you could get by with as few as 36 trades. But the general consensus is that trades form a wide-tail distribution so you need a lot more. Wm Eckhardt insists on a minimum of 1800 trades. I personally think you can get by with about a third of that...

Only if you're trying to trend trade in a mean-reverting price series. Successful traders adapt to the market, they don't expect it to adapt to them.

Expectation doesn't have to be stationary if you use dynamic position sizing.

I'll look at charts but I don't need them to trade. Just let the computer crunch the numbers, that's what it was built for.

What makes you ASSume I'm not profitable?

You've been here nine years and you aren't profitable yet? Wow. Sucks to be you.

Arbitrary claim here. :) You need a minimum SAS of +0.1 to have an edge. SAS == 4*k*max[ 0, E ]*PF*min[ 1, N/mant ] , where SAS is the System Achievement Score, k is the full Kelly fraction, E is the expectation, PF is the profit factor (see below), N...