Worst case scenario for me is that I go back to my old job with 6 months of living expenses gone. I'm not worried about blowing my account or losing money in my day trading account.
Best case scenario is that I'm actually successful doing this.
A scenario in between these two is that I need to return to the 9-5, but am able to find a job with more flexibility and better pay that I can combine with day trading assuming I want to keep pursuing that. My current job seems like a dead end anyway, so I feel I've made the right choice.
I'm glad to hear you say this. In that you've got a back-up plan, if things don't work out.
Let me add, that when you run into issues? Don't get disheartened. I've been trading for 23 years now, and there was a time about 20 years ago, I tried what you are trying. The results of that attempt, caused me to walk away from
active trading for a time.
So you have a fall-back. Good. In that arena, I like the way you're thinking. It shows you think about risk.
Let me just talk about some things ... and to show you due respect? Maybe you have considered these things. But if you were trading my firms capital (
I'm not talking about you trading OPM, I'm talking about a scenario so you can consider some factors), what my questions would be. That way, if you have to fall back to your worse-case scenario? It'll give you some things to think about as well.
Is it single strat? If the answer is Yes? Then that's going to be a negative. Not a game killer. But negative. I might wince on hearing that. That's a pretty big deal. As one of my partners likes to say ... "
... as we call it, but it is critical not to confuse good discipline with poor adaptation skills. Rigid rule based trading is certainly valid, but in our quantitative pursuits we've never seen a single strategy applied to a single market with a single mechanical risk/reward scheme that made money consistently for twenty years, or even five years for that matter. Of course the internet is filled with websites claiming they have such systems but when you look under the hood you always find the same things. A year or two of hypothetical testing (if that) which is heavily optimized (curve fit) to those specific historic conditions".
Single-strat's put you under more pressure. Especially, if it's intra-day.
Do some trade single-strats and 'make it'? Yes. Do they make it from tradin But I've personally never understood why anyone trades single-strat, when they don't have to ... they can lessen the psychological burden on themselves by trading multi-strat, lessen the psychological burdens you feel when one program goes into DD, have better risk adjusted performance, by simply trading multi-strat?
What is the testing regime like? Again, to the above point? How long has your process been tested. I think someone earlier in the thread say that they had tested their strat for 2 years? Or sent it through 2 years of testing? Something like that?
I have to be honest. That's no real measure of any process. Not at all. Not even close. One simple, what we refer to as "regime change" (
and there may be one approaching) and it will wreck any process that attempts to trade off of two or three, or even five years of data. There's a real reason that Quants, or firms that have Quantitative Research done ... will test their processes for at least TWENTY years of in-sample data.
And even that's not enough.
You need at least TWENTY years of in-sample data, and three years of out-of-sample data to move forward with a process.
With two or three years of testing? By definition, it's curve fit to that time frame.
Fail in this arena? It will simply kill any trader. Without mercy. I know, it happened to me in 1998. And I've seen it happen to ... oh ... maybe around 5,000 people who've attempted it that I've encountered.
What is the Capital Being Used? I know you've heard this before. And you probably don't want to hear it. But I'll just say ... well .... ... let me put it this way.
Have I ever heard of someone starting out with $15,000 and eventually making it to full-time trading.
Absolutely.
The industry is filled with them. Because they took that $15,000, took a monthly draw from something else like spousal income, grinded for about 6 years, got it to a respectable amount, while they added capital, and THEN they went pro.
Have I ever heard of someone starting out with $15,000 and jumping
right into trading being their sole vocation and making it?
No. Not once. And there have been papers written on this phenomenon ... by like ... Stanford University on the phenomenon.
On $15,000, the problem is not living cheaply. It's the math that a monthly draw, magnify's DD's ... making even the most basic of DD's absolutely catastrophic.
And so putting it all together? Even if one lives MORE cheaply than they have figured? It still cannot work. It simply can't. It's just math. Because it's requiring a process to give linear returns.
Which have never ... ever ... in the history of trading ... ever happened.
There is a firm out there that annualizes so high, they're not open to outside investment. They are so good, they are closed. They have had TWO losing months, in like a decade.
So even the best of the best on this entire planet? THEY haven't done it.
And they trade multi-strat.
No one has EVER done it ... trading single-strat. Especially if it's mechanical.