Quote from acrary:
One thing I noted was if you use 1/2 of optimal f then fixed ratio beats the performance during the first year or two until the fixed fractional catches up. I'm working on estimating the crossover point to see if it makes sense to start with one and switch to the other.
Acrary,
This is familiar to me in that Ryan Jones advocated doing this vis-a-vis the 1) "generic" fixed fractional (of which optimal f is but one of the variants) versus 2) the fixed ratio... it obviously makes sense to start with with the "accelerated" fixed fractional and then make the transition to the "equal effort per size increment" fixed ratio at the crossover point... I remain stumped, though, on which factor to impute into the fixed ratio calculation in order to obtain the hypothetical crossover point (assuming you have chosen a given risk factor for the fixed fractional technique, how do you go about "choosing" the factor for the fixed ratio, in order to enable you to draw the crossover chart?)... basic fixed fractional methodologies have served me well to date but I, one assumes like you, am starting to get that "toppy size" feeling
Candle