Can random trading be profitable?

[Specterx]

I remember a few years ago in a thread in tradingblox some people argued that random entries with appropriate stops technique turns out to be a very profitable method. Is this possible?

The short answer is, absolutely not. The strategy will at best be breakeven minus commissions and slippage.

The long answer is that a random strategy (or long-term losing strategy) can of course, by sheer luck, enjoy long periods of profitability, just as a winning strategy will experience drawdowns. Additionally, a "random" strategy might contain non-random elements or features that make it profitable in certain market conditions (for instance if the strategy is long-only it should be profitable during a bull market, even if the entries are taken at random times).

 

[Handle123]

I remember a few years ago in a thread in tradingblox some people argued that random entries with appropriate stops technique turns out to be a very profitable method. Is this possible?

Comes down to personality and control. Random theory can work like in the ES where for most part chops around a great deal, whereas markets like Crude Oil, much less so, but unless you are flipping a coin on when to buy/sell, it wouldn't be random. Random is like breakout trading, you getting in at worst price and stops have to be much more than getting in at support/resistance. Better entries allow for tighter protective stops and better chances of hitting targets.

 

[austinp]

Intellectually, seems like it might be.

There are 4 possibilities in a trade... small gain, small loss, big gain, big loss. If you trade with stops to eliminate the "big loss", who knows?

I know... the result will inevitably be an extended string of consecutive losses that draws down account past point of survival.

This foolish notion has been computer tested to death by aspiring traders looking for shortcuts to success. There is one path to long term trading success: learn to follow price action an not fight = fade it, enter at key S/R zones, cut losses short, let profits run.

Anything else will result in failure over time

 

[tobbe]

I remember reading in one of Van Tharp's books where they did a back test with a random entry, trailing stop and small position size over several futures contracts and got an overall profitable result.

Van Tharp demonstrated that a carefully selected string of random entries was profitable when applying "good money management". Apply the same logic to a string of not so carefully selected random entries and see what you get.

If memory serves, Tharp had access to a profitable system and they replaced the entry logic with "random entries". Using various MM rules they could "prove" the system was still profitable.

More specifically, the exits were certainly not random. So saying he demonstrated that a "random entry" system can be profitable using "money management" only, is wrong. He demonstrated that a profitable system remained profitable. Most likely curve fitting the data (just guessing here, but hey, he was trying to make a point in a book).

If you've done any systems testing you know entry/exit/profit/money management-logic are interrelated in mysterious ways and trying to optimize or test one part without affecting another is near impossible. It's like a game of whack-a-mole.

So finding a profitable random entry system for a limited time series is not really a problem. If you're writing a book and need to make a point, it's not an issue. Making it work across multiple timeframes and instruments is a completely different thing.

Don't believe everything you read. When in doubt, test it yourself and don't trust anyone else to do it for you. :eek:

Sorry to repeat myself, I've mentioned this before.

 

[austinp]

If you've done any systems testing you know entry/exit/profit/money management-logic are interrelated in mysterious ways and trying to optimize or test one part without affecting another is near impossible. It's like a game of whack-a-mole.

I spent two years' research time and $6,000 on RINA software (add-on for TradeStation charting) in 2003 - 2004 to learn the very same thing.

One of many reasons why so many traders fail... they resist the known paths to success while wasting time chasing their tails down a bunch of others.

 

[dbphoenix]

Tharp was the "vendor" I referred to earlier. And he sucked as a trader.

Struggling traders latch on to this kind of thing because it holds the promise of providing them with a potential out rather than have to go to the trouble of developing a consistently-profitable trading plan.

Unfortunately, it doesn't even qualify as a promise.

 

[BSAM]

Can random trading be profitable?

Probably not.

Here's a much better question: Can trading with a trend be profitable?

(Hint: the trend is your friend.)

 

[BSAM]

...One of many reasons why so many traders fail... they resist the known paths to success while wasting time chasing their tails down a bunch of others.

Brother and sister newbies: Brother Austin has just thrown you a bone; or if your prefer, an ET gem.
I point this out because I realize that this just flew over the heads of many who read so much here and don't know what to remember, as being important.
No charge for this today.

 

[R. Raskolnikov]

Well said, kut2k2.

This is a foolish theory put forward by people who think you can prioritize the components of a trading plan. They rank money management as most important, followed by the exit strategy, with the entry strategy as the least important component or maybe even completely unimportant (aka randomizable).

Of course the logical approach is to treat all three components as equally important and to neglect none of them.

 

[BSAM]

If you understand where a good entry is, this means you also understand money management.

Exits are somewhat harder, even after you learn good entries.