Random entry?...that doesn't sound like good money management to me, but hey, what do I know.
- nathan
- nathan

. Luck is not a sustainable equation that one can control. On the other hand if one was to count cards the odds of coming out positive would be much more favourable. Understanding the right time of entry paired with solid money management would beat any random entry system. That is common sense and a lot more obvious. It is the naive side within us that remains being positive of similar suggestions.Funny toe fella:Quote from toe:
you're not meant to trade it funny fellas. []
Quote from Tremaine:
Btw, Tharp is not suggesting that you actually trade using this system. He simply uses it to demonstrate one of the major poits of his book: That entry is one of the least important components of a trading system.
The author responding to Bolter on using random trades to index against simulation results.Quote from Tremaine:
Nobody is saying that using random entry is a good idea. The challenge is obviously to beat random entry when you design this part of your system.
On the topic of indexing against results using randomisation, I personally think we can thank our 'lucky stars' that the FDA requires exactly that when they are asked to decide whether to allow a new drug onto the market. A significant result in a controlled, double blind study is the gold standard. Controlled being the key word because many patients will get better without a new drug, just the same as many trading systems will make money with random entries. There's no value in knowing your system merely makes money, if it doesn't beat the market then how can you have confidence it will make money if the market changes? Without indexing against random, we may not be aware that our system is no better than random.Quote from Tremaine:
Thanks Bolter.
Has anyone achieved similar results?