Beating Larry Williams record
- Thread starter sabena
- Start date
- Status
robert, not sure what marketing scheme you mean, have to add that the only thing i know about zanger is the fortune article and the numbers on his web site...
model acct 1999 + 1,833,310 (61 trades, about 28 losers @ average of $12,139, then 33 winners @ average of $55,554. )
model acct 2000 -(9,400)
model acct 2001 -(19,525)
model acct 2002 -(11,250 ytd)
= +1,793,135 1999 - ytd
not bad for a trend follower...
plus you mustn't forget that the turtles, still managing billions of dollars today, had very volatile results over the years depending on market situation, ie were there trends or not, but most of them are still around and doing very well, but while they were volatile, some more than others, they also never aspired to the outlandish gains achieved by the big guy richard dennis himself who turned 400 into 200 million, BUT also blew himself up a number of times, something most of his less ambitious followers managed to avoid.
i mentioned a couple of others above, eg soros and robertson etc, just no two ways about it, you won't make huge money with small drawdowns, that much hasn't changed since jesse livermore...
it's really just what you want and what you're willing to accept to get there.
model acct 1999 + 1,833,310 (61 trades, about 28 losers @ average of $12,139, then 33 winners @ average of $55,554. )
model acct 2000 -(9,400)
model acct 2001 -(19,525)
model acct 2002 -(11,250 ytd)
= +1,793,135 1999 - ytd
not bad for a trend follower...
plus you mustn't forget that the turtles, still managing billions of dollars today, had very volatile results over the years depending on market situation, ie were there trends or not, but most of them are still around and doing very well, but while they were volatile, some more than others, they also never aspired to the outlandish gains achieved by the big guy richard dennis himself who turned 400 into 200 million, BUT also blew himself up a number of times, something most of his less ambitious followers managed to avoid.
i mentioned a couple of others above, eg soros and robertson etc, just no two ways about it, you won't make huge money with small drawdowns, that much hasn't changed since jesse livermore...
it's really just what you want and what you're willing to accept to get there.
If you look on the home page of the link given above - thats:
http://www.ctiming.com/Index.asp
apparently LW has a million dollar challenge over 3 days.
He's going to use a 1m $ account to trade over the 3 days
and split the proceeds with the attendees!!!
The cost incl. seminars and board and lodging is ... wait for it .....
$5000.00. Am I going ..... no !!
http://www.ctiming.com/Index.asp
apparently LW has a million dollar challenge over 3 days.
He's going to use a 1m $ account to trade over the 3 days
and split the proceeds with the attendees!!!
The cost incl. seminars and board and lodging is ... wait for it .....
$5000.00. Am I going ..... no !!
That is a valid point. It makes me wonder but then again I've not managed large amounts of money. Buzzy Schwartz is probably a good example. He won some trading contests and did very well compounding his personal accounts. When he started managing OPM his % return took a nose dive (as would be expected). However he managed to maintain positive returns over time, even though he had a very difficult time adapting to the new environment. He put himself in the hospital because of all the stress! You have to wonder if it is really worth it to trade managed money when you read things like that in Pitbull.
now that is really crazy, $ 5000,-....
geez...
i mean trading is really simple, right, simple and stable entries, simple and stable exits, accepting there is no holy grail, and sizing your positions depending on your appetite and your willingness to maybe, hehe, have to go back to drive a cab to build up a stake again if your appetite is too large...
if people would open a futures or whatever acct with those 5000 i'm sure they'd benefit much more than watching an act whose outcome over three days cannot be much more than random...
just trading yourself is the best way to learn anyway imo, making mistakes, learning from them, and just basically developing a style that fits the individual.
ps, actually marty schwartz folded his fund and quit trading OPM
geez...
i mean trading is really simple, right, simple and stable entries, simple and stable exits, accepting there is no holy grail, and sizing your positions depending on your appetite and your willingness to maybe, hehe, have to go back to drive a cab to build up a stake again if your appetite is too large...
if people would open a futures or whatever acct with those 5000 i'm sure they'd benefit much more than watching an act whose outcome over three days cannot be much more than random...
just trading yourself is the best way to learn anyway imo, making mistakes, learning from them, and just basically developing a style that fits the individual.
ps, actually marty schwartz folded his fund and quit trading OPM
well, ehh, robert, that is the point, actually....
that's compounding...
you cannot turn 11k into 18 million within the time span he did if you just have positions of 10k, or just have positions that don't increase/decrease along with your growing/shrinking equity, in time frames and markets where liquidity allows for that...
the larger the equity, the larger the positions... compounding, right?
and again, tiger robertson had a drawdown of 50%, so did dennis, so did many others, right?
ok ok, i'm in no way saying that they can be compared to zanger, no dispute over that...
but imo sthg not to be ignored is what i wrote earlier:
i'm just saying that very many had the same opportunies but very few managed to cash in, and of those that did, how many subsequently didn't go on to blow it all again in the markets?
i guess i'm trying to say that somebody who turns 11k into 50 or 250k or even 500k in one of histories great bull markets and manages to realize those gains can be termed "lucky", but having the nerves to compound 11k into 18 million through lots of sitting tight and keeping losses manageable AND holding on to your profits?
disclosure: no present or prior involvement of any kind with zanger
that's compounding...
you cannot turn 11k into 18 million within the time span he did if you just have positions of 10k, or just have positions that don't increase/decrease along with your growing/shrinking equity, in time frames and markets where liquidity allows for that...
the larger the equity, the larger the positions... compounding, right?
and again, tiger robertson had a drawdown of 50%, so did dennis, so did many others, right?
ok ok, i'm in no way saying that they can be compared to zanger, no dispute over that...
but imo sthg not to be ignored is what i wrote earlier:
i'm just saying that very many had the same opportunies but very few managed to cash in, and of those that did, how many subsequently didn't go on to blow it all again in the markets?
i guess i'm trying to say that somebody who turns 11k into 50 or 250k or even 500k in one of histories great bull markets and manages to realize those gains can be termed "lucky", but having the nerves to compound 11k into 18 million through lots of sitting tight and keeping losses manageable AND holding on to your profits?
disclosure: no present or prior involvement of any kind with zanger
- Status