Quote from greaterreturn:
The focus is the drop from 2500 to 1750 which is 30% loss of market value.
Notice that the market reversed from 1750 to 2020 immediately after that.
Let me do the math here to find out how much of % retracement that was...
WOW! That was a 750 point loss followed by a 270 point gain.
Do you realize that some people got VERY rich off that 36% reversal?
Sure they lost had draw down during the dive but more than made it all back on that bounce.
Let's say you trade against trend as you've already mentioned and start shorting at 2500, and add to the position every 10 points the market gets against you. You add equal sizes every time. Short at 2500, short at 2490, short at 2480, etc. till bottom of 1750. That makes and average price of your position 2125, or 375 points away from the bottom. That's 50% retracement from 750 point move. That's right, you need at least 50% retracement to at least break even.
The only way to profit from 36% retracement is to increase size when adding to position. That would make a ridiculous martingale strategy.
But you say they would take a loss during the dive. So my bet is that the earliest trades (shorted near 2500) had to be taken off with a loss when they exceeded expected MAE (that you calculate by assuming normal distribution). Although still not sure how would you make more than you lost during that 36% retracement. The only way that is possible is if you increased size for each new addition to the position.
Also you say your average loser is 100 times larger than your average winner. Here's an idea for you: randomly place trades that have SL 100 times larger than profit target. See if that's any different than your approach.
All you have to do is build a model that capitalizes on the random distribution of prices to have trades win 98% of the time.
Here's what I think what you did:
You bootstrapped MAE of all possible trades and took simulated value @98%.