Any good book on statistics side of system building?

Quote from Nana Trader:

You mean 6-8% return on investment (leveraged money)?
If so, that's 84% return, which is excellent

Now it depend how big your account and leverage is
More...

If compounding, 7% per month is 225% annualized. Nice return.
 
nice. how much capital are you trading with and how long have you been trading this system?

Quote from MAESTRO:

Approximately 6 - 8% a month net return on the money. 1 month a year is a looser (not more than an average winning month). The system is 90% robotic with the repair strategy triggered by a decision maker. That is about as much as I can tell.
More...
 
Quote from inCom:

If compounding, 7% per month is 225% annualized. Nice return.
More...

Most don't reinvest money, because if your 10th,
11th, 12 month are big losers, you give back most
of what you have made back to the market.
 
I suggest Toby Crabel's book or his articles from TASC. Also, the article in Jul 2005, TASC is interesting: "Targeting Your Pattern"

We've developed scripts based on Crabel & refined them with Scorpio's zones. Statistics work...
 
Quote from Nana Trader:

Most don't reinvest money, because if your 10th,
11th, 12 month are big losers, you give back most
of what you have made back to the market.
More...

Why? Suppose you have 100$ and lose 7% for three consecutive months, as in your example.
Without compounding: 100 - 7 - 7 - 7 = 79$, so you lost 21$.
With compounding: 100 * 0.93 * 0.93 * 0.93 = 80.44$, and you lost just 19.56$.

As another example, suppose instead you won 7% for three months.
Without compounding: 100 + 7 + 7 + 7 = 121$, so you won 21$.
With compounding: 100 * 1.07 * 1.07 * 1.07 = 122.50$, and you won 22.50$, which is more.

In both cases, you're better off by compounding than not.
 
Quote from inCom:

Why? Suppose you have 100$ and lose 7% for three consecutive months, as in your example.
Without compounding: 100 - 7 - 7 - 7 = 79$, so you lost 21$.
With compounding: 100 * 0.93 * 0.93 * 0.93 = 80.44$, and you lost just 19.56$.

As another example, suppose instead you won 7% for three months.
Without compounding: 100 + 7 + 7 + 7 = 121$, so you won 21$.
With compounding: 100 * 1.07 * 1.07 * 1.07 = 122.50$, and you won 22.50$, which is more.

In both cases, you're better off by compounding than not.
More...

If you win for 9 months with 7% return and compounding
it will 183% return.
Now if you lose 7% last 3 months, your account return will
be 148%.
Second scenario could be worse, if your last 3 months lose
is 10% each, you return will be 134%.

So it's proving neither methods has any advantage over another.
Best/worst Scenarios depend just on your luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top