the quality of the commentary here reflects the "quality" of the "traders" on ET. major part of the reason why old posters left ET.
go from 30k to 1 mln in 6 months
- Thread starter abnormal
- Start date
the quality of the commentary here reflects the "quality" of the "traders" on ET. major part of the reason why old posters left ET.
Fixed timer according to strategy.
Commodity futures: from a few minutes to a maximum of 30 minutes
Stocks/Bond corporate: from a few minutes to two/three hours.
If the market is close to closure, the settlement system with unbalanced distribution is activated a few minutes earlier.
there is also a trailing stop as stop loss or stop profit. But I keep it at a distance. I have no interest in it being hit.
Low risk, because when the strategies will be in full swing it will do something like 100/150 trades a day. I don't do all up single trade. I do not mediate at a loss.
higher frequency does lower the risk???
this is the first time i read some out of the box statement that i would like to understand.
how does higher frequency lower the risk? so if frequency is high enough there is no risk anymore?
Good to see that at least there are a few people left in Italy whose highest dream isn't being a public "servant" or an employee protected by their stupid laws(which is almost the same thing as a public "servant")... These people are like a plague and make up almost the entire population of the country... LOL
Taking matters into one's own hands is always admirable...
Higher frequency can be a good way to lower risk if your strategy has at least a small probability in ones favor, because the element of chance is reduced , take a large bookmaker for example taking millions of bets ,winning say just 6 out of 10, on for the sake of argument equal size payout to win size, it's extremely unlikely one event will bankrupt them, however a poker player going all in with a very good hand , which usually wins at a superior 7/10 win rate is at far greater risk of losing it all. So with a winning strategy for example of 10 days of 100 small trades( this could be in terms of time not necessarily size) to gain say 10% is far less risky than 1 trade held over 10 days (with the same profit factor).
The true risk is that the strategy isn't genuinely profitable , then the chances of winning overall are reversed , with the unprofitable strategy having virtually no chance of winning and the all in one time event even with a slightly negative probability a small chance.
This is a boring and convoluted way of stating the obvious.
The true risk is that the strategy isn't genuinely profitable , then the chances of winning overall are reversed , with the unprofitable strategy having virtually no chance of winning and the all in one time event even with a slightly negative probability a small chance.
This is a boring and convoluted way of stating the obvious.
Kind of - but it's all perfectly true, of course: basically you're rapidly increasing the sample-size, and assuming there's a genuine edge combined with appropriate position-sizing (sometimes big assumptions, admittedly!) that clearly reduces overall risk.
what you described is: don't put all your eggs in one basket. lowering risk by diversification.
has nothing to do with frequency. he lowers the risk by diversification not by increasing the frequency. capital management.
if a trader trades 1 time a day 1 ctr ES, and then starts to trade 100 times in a row 1 ctr ES, he increases the frequency. but the risk will not decrease.
Aren't we all?
(No, of course we're not "all": what I really meant to say is "So am I" ... and don't ever let anyone tell you that Asperger's is any kind of "problem" for trading: personally, I've found exactly the opposite.)
I've certainly seen plenty of "timed exits" used in trading, and I know that it can be a viable method of trade closure (though - just as is true of almost any other method - it has its advantages and its disadvantages, too).
I hope I won't offend you by mentioning that I think (a) that this is a wildly unrealistic and unreasonable target, and (b) I think just having a target of that kind at all is actually a mistaken (albeit understandable) approach, because it speaks implicitly of a broader perspective of profit-maximization rather than one of risk-management: long-term, successful trading is really all about risk-management, not so much about profit-maximization.
But wishing you well with your journal and your trading, and will be watching with interest.
Setting up unrealistic goals can set you up for frustration and disappointment. A developing trader would be better served to focus on the process of trading and the elements contributing to competency. If you can do that and most can't, the money will come. How much is anybody's guess. Aside from one's own skills, markets will contract and expand and exogenous events will occur over which you have no control but will be part of determining opportunity for profitability.