2014: The Battle for Survival
- Thread starter neke
- Start date
Nice to be on the right side of the big swings for a change! Congrats Neke keep on the right side.
The position sizes (%-wise) is no more than I have been using in Jan and Feb. They are less than 100% of AV, except for the cases where averaging is permitted (few). Volatility in individual stocks have been bigger than normal in March, hence the bigger gains. Also as my account balance increases, the $ value of the sizes increases. Nothing out of the ordinary in my sizing. I take an average of only two/three positions a day. I do not trade like people that hold 20 positions concurrently.
A stock strategy, as outlined earlier
It's good to see your awesome result
Everything worked out with your discretionary decision to average in; if the trade didn't turn in your favor as you were averaging, would it have been possible for you to override the strict rules enforced by your system?
You don't have to answer that here, but I think it's important for you to know the answer.
It's good to see your awesome result
Everything worked out with your discretionary decision to average in; if the trade didn't turn in your favor as you were averaging, would it have been possible for you to override the strict rules enforced by your system?
You don't have to answer that here, but I think it's important for you to know the answer.
I am only allowed to average in once (same size as original) within defined price level and timeframe. My system would close it out if it did not adhere to the constraints.
Neke: I just saw your thread now! I have some comments and questions:
1. Some posts (including some of yours) seem to suggest that answers may be found in the thinking, philosophical writings and assumed greatness of others. It seems to me that the answer is the opposite. Why? Because if one follows others the best he can achieve would be to be in second place. If one assumes that trading is a zero to negative sum activity, it would mean it would be correct (or at least prudent) to assume that there is no second place if one want to be winner. Therefore, one would need to be in a league of his own above everyone else in terms of trading.
If I constrain my mind to follow others, I believe that my chances to be in the top league (above everyone else) would be made probably impossible.
Is it possible that Neke in the early years was better in trading than Neke of some years down the road? If yes, is it because Neke of the past was thinking to become the best, and had the confidence that he can the best?)
2. One way I try to assess points related to 1. is to look at RRs. We know that each trade has an RR in the sense of the RR that takes place after the entry (not the RR used in a trading system). What has been your actual RRs (mean and variance), and what are the RRs that you think the best in the worlds can/cannot produce?
If I can produce the the best RRs at the best probs, I would know that I would be in the top of the class. A great boxer (I like Muhammed Ali) (or a great general) are great because they do things that are clearly above the realm of the possible among the average people. Similarly if I want to achieve something great in a zero sum activity it would mean that I would have to do something that is above the realm of the possible among the traders.
Why would you not think that Neke could produce a Neke that Seyoka (or whatever his name is) should look up to for success like the current Neke was advised to look up to Seyoka.
3. In essence, one should produce a trader in the top class from within himself, and the numbers are just a measure to determine if the product (a trader) is indeed the best in the world.
4. What if you were to fail to become the best in the world? The consolation prize might be a winning trader.
1. Some posts (including some of yours) seem to suggest that answers may be found in the thinking, philosophical writings and assumed greatness of others. It seems to me that the answer is the opposite. Why? Because if one follows others the best he can achieve would be to be in second place. If one assumes that trading is a zero to negative sum activity, it would mean it would be correct (or at least prudent) to assume that there is no second place if one want to be winner. Therefore, one would need to be in a league of his own above everyone else in terms of trading.
If I constrain my mind to follow others, I believe that my chances to be in the top league (above everyone else) would be made probably impossible.
Is it possible that Neke in the early years was better in trading than Neke of some years down the road? If yes, is it because Neke of the past was thinking to become the best, and had the confidence that he can the best?)
2. One way I try to assess points related to 1. is to look at RRs. We know that each trade has an RR in the sense of the RR that takes place after the entry (not the RR used in a trading system). What has been your actual RRs (mean and variance), and what are the RRs that you think the best in the worlds can/cannot produce?
If I can produce the the best RRs at the best probs, I would know that I would be in the top of the class. A great boxer (I like Muhammed Ali) (or a great general) are great because they do things that are clearly above the realm of the possible among the average people. Similarly if I want to achieve something great in a zero sum activity it would mean that I would have to do something that is above the realm of the possible among the traders.
Why would you not think that Neke could produce a Neke that Seyoka (or whatever his name is) should look up to for success like the current Neke was advised to look up to Seyoka.
3. In essence, one should produce a trader in the top class from within himself, and the numbers are just a measure to determine if the product (a trader) is indeed the best in the world.
4. What if you were to fail to become the best in the world? The consolation prize might be a winning trader.