@epic:
I would be putting up a greater amount of capital so that my EV would be worse then yours. I agree with your sentiment about trading competitions in general and this is why my idea would be that the competition would be ranked against a formula taking into account risk adjusted and net return ,as well as, having per trade risk controls. I can't do it though unless there is a return great enough to make it worth my time. So, I agree for it to happen someone would have to sponsor it...
>First, what could possibly be in it for me to challenge you to a trading >competition? You are asking me to stake you in a competition against myself.
>Second, the more you talk, the more you come off as having a gamblers >mentality toward trading. That is exactly what short term trading >competitions are. Any sort of competition where someone pays a small >amount for a chance at winning a much larger amount, is a gambling >competitiom
@klurby:
Technically I've never traded the futures contracts. I've traded them on simulator, and I've traded spread contracts at NADEX at equivalent size to the ES futures, though typically less then that. I'm currently trading futures on a simulator as part of a review process from an interested backer who would fund me with 10k+ account. The amount you need to trade futures depends on your methods, broker, etc. I would say 10k is near the lower bounds. Most futures brokers only require 5k to open an account. I have methods that can trade with as little as 6k-8k depending on the market.
>How do you trade futures with only 3k? dont you need at least 10k?
@carolnetzer27:
It is very true that it is difficult to improve discretionary trading methods. I have fully quantified methods that are completely rule based and they do work rather well too. However, I do not believe that strictly following a rule-based method is the right approach to trading. I offer such rule-based methods as a PRODUCT because that is what I correctly deduced that CONSUMERS (investors) wanted. And, I had seen both methods working: that is I've had success with both methods. However, sense gaining more experience I no longer believe in a strict rule-based method and plan to change my PRODUCTS, in the near future, to indicate that they are highly systematic but that there is some opportunity for human decision making.
Trading styles can be grouped into 3 styles:
100% Rule Based/Mechanical: No human decision making takes place. This is a bit of a misnomer because human decision making must still take place at some level. But, in general all efforts are to minimize it. The only decision is whether to trade the system or shut it down.
Systematic: Method has defined rules but human decision making and intervention is possible.
Discretionary: Method does not have precise/completely defined rules but in general "fuzzy" rules and in general principles are used.
My experience had generally led me to prefer systematic and discretionary methods over mechanical methods. But, you're exactly right about process improvement. It is the hardest aspect and exactly how to do that has been a major focus of my life work. My orientation is more focused on principles then rules. Principles would be making the optimal decision, managing risk, and finding good opportunities.
A rules based approach is primarily designed to limit and restrict for you from making bad decision whereas a a principles based approach is geared to orienting one to making good decisions. I just find the second more useful for me.
>I do have one question. On the first page of your thread, you mentioned >that you DO NOT FOLLOW RULES in your trading. That statement is >confusing for me as I do not understand how to improve a process that >follows no rules.