If there was a trading technique that was 90-100% always positive, how much would you give to learn

[Redneck]

If there was a trading technique that was 90-100% always positive, how much would you give to learn

Just as the thread name says, I'm curious what the readers here think

To claim 100% - I'd say that someone is smokin crack

Anything less than 100% - I be focused (as always) on managing the losing % - that shit will break a trader unless properly managed

Then there's that pesky % return per trade / per day to deal with (R2R if you prefer)


RN

 

[JTrades]

Jack Schwager interviewing Mark Weinstein:


Well, let's put it this way: What was your worst single trading month?

I haven't had any losing months.

You have made money in every single month since 1980!

Yes. Of course, I could have made a lot more money if I wasn't so cautious, but that is the way I trade.

Do you remember your worst losing week?

I haven't had any losing weeks during that time, but I have had some losing days.

That is an incredible statement. How can you be sure that you are not simply forgetting about a few weeks when you lost money trading?

The reason I am sure is that I remember all my losses. For example, I have had three losing days in the last two years. Out of the thousands of trades I made during that time, I had 17 losers, but nine of them were because my quote machine was down, and when that happens I just get out of my position.


This implies a 99% win rate.

Personally, not sure what to make of this.

 

[Redneck]

Personally, not sure what to make of this.

Think outside the box

You need additional thought provoking PM me

RN

 

[samuel11]

Once more and for the final time, let me say this... HOGWASH!! Every trading decision is independent... not reliant on any other. The buyer thinks he's right for buying. The seller believes he's right for selling. Otherwise, neither would act.

That’s not true. Example:

You are bullish on SPX, so you want to buy ES.

I am bullish too, but I also want a short exposure to volatility, so I will sell a put spread.

In the meantime, I want to protect some of my delta exposure, so I will sell ES to partially offset.

We are trading against each other, even though we have the same opinion on the underlying.

However, you have no idea that I just sold a put spread.

 

[loik]

How would somebody learn that his opponent is a 90% winning trader??? He cannot so there will be always transactions, no matter 90% or 10%. And both will think they will win.

The very profitable traders take the money from the losers. Although these losers want to be winners too. This proofs that high winning raters are taking money from the low winning raters.
So low winning traders take predefined losses without even knowing it, and thinking they have an equal chance.

What about mutual funds, i.e. do mutual fund managers etc, buy/sell because they believe they are going to have a winning trade?

 

[loik]

I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade or dash anyone's hopes... but the notion of "90% win rate".. and whatever rationale supports that is pure BS. If some trader has any such thoughts, he's "fishing in a dry hole" and should look elsewhere.

Think about it logically. A "90% win rate" would be worth $BILLIONS to anyone who could trade size

Are there systems that are limited by size, i.e. the big don't bother?

 

[Handle123]

Systems that are that good either never are sold or have such an open amount of risk or should say continued risk, how deep are your pockets. I only know one such system and guy wrote a book on it called
http://www.amazon.com/You-Cant-Lose-Trading-Commodities/dp/0965111105

It is actually pretty good, BUT you might have to keep rolling over years to never have losses. And you have to have deep pockets. There are ways you can reduce percentages on getting very low losing percentages, but no one is going to teach them to you, you have to put in the time yourself and discover by error. If you look at like producers of food, they use futures markets all the time, and seldom do they lose money, but there are times they do like the airlines right now. And often times what you think is incredible system, longer out you back test becomes crap system.

Another often not thought about, if you developed such a system, you would not want to trade it often as it would wipe out the markets, or, brokers would get printout of who is doing insanely well and try to pick apart what you are doing. I have found through the years someone developing a nuance of something often caused my technical flaw in either electronics or market makers not aware and couple guys ruin themselves by over trading it.

 

[jinxu]

The 90-100% is not enough.

Your risk/reward ratio is just as important. ie Are you taking too high of a risk for small gains into order to get your win rate at 90%? That's what a lot of HFT strategy do.

 

[i960]

A lot of HFT strategies just flat out front run the market. You can bias their risk downwards greatly.

 

[Mtrader]

Think about it logically. A "90% win rate" would be worth $BILLIONS to anyone who could trade size. If possible, no expense would be too great to discover and achieve it. Hire as many PhD's or computer geniuses as you can find... whatever the cost, worth it.

Not correct again. Maybe the high win rate is connected to limited size. If a high win rate system requires you to close postitions within 1-2 minutes, you cannot build up or downsize big positions.
For instance this system could trade on 1 minute charts. In that case making trades happens within minutes. Impossible to take huge positions. So limiting the potential. What if the system is discretional and cannot be automated? Again a limitation.

So how can any single trader presume to "figure it out" where others with $Billions at risk haven't?

In past many inventions were made by small groups or even single persons. if it would only be matter of $ billions, then the richest company in the world would make all the inventions.
But Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Whatsapp and Twitter were not invented by $ billions companies. All these companies started from 1 or a few people ( mostly wityhout any money but with a new idea). It is not about money, it is about having a new idea that was never explored succesfully before.


PS: Your wife confirmed that it is difficult to discuss with you. She told me you always want to be right, even if you are not.