My road to Heaven
- Thread starter Evgeniy
- Start date
Can you provide the specific title on the Karen Pryor book, this link brings up many titles but none relating to animal and human training. Cheers
Bite your tongue. In the Battle of Stalingrad alone, twice as many Russians died than Americans in the entire Second World War. Also during the Battle of Stalingrad, we destroyed the Nazis twice as many as the Americans on the Second Front. Please respect the ancestors.
Week #02
Over a long distance, systemic consistency always wins creative skill. But each system has its own weaknesses, its own boundary conditions.
For my system, a difficult condition is a neutral day controlled by non-daily players (participants transferring their positions through the night - short and long swing). For a long time and constantly the market cannot be in this state, because it is not effective. And it’s very good that such days have come - the possibility of a live stress-test of the system has appeared.
The 3rd Sigma event came yesterday. The maximum number of transactions per day (1.8 times higher than average) with a minimum% + (53% + with a break-even point of 64% +).
With an average% + 71% MLS (maximum number of losing trades in a row) in 3sd sigma = 5, MLDD (Maximum Drawdown) with a coefficient of 2 = -64 ticks. Yesterday there were 6 losing trades in a row and the total drawdown was -61.6 ticks.
There were days worse, but there were significantly fewer transactions, which did not give such a drawdown.
The trading time for the "complete" system is 22.5 hours per day. The system "My hours" is designed for 7 hours. This system yielded only 4 MLS and -33.4 MLDD, which is lower than planned (5 and -64).
In a low-plus system, commission begins to play a high role. Therefore, using MES instead of ES is not acceptable.
For a long time I wanted to see how the use of MES in a skidding system will affect. Using MES instead of ES halves net profit for a working system and drastically reduces it to a minus for a stalled one.
An alternative to MES is MNQ, where the commission / volatility ratio is better. But here it’s not a systematic, but a creative approach. Yesterday I felt MNQ:
The maximum MAE was -$30.50, NP +283.26. Thus, NP/MaxMAE = 9.2.
Traditionally, the market begins to breathe easier after the close of Europe (11:30 NY) and phasing combines with ^TICK.
Solutions:
1. Accept for the "complete" system MLS = 8 with MLDD = -102. For "My hour" leave 5 and -64. Consequently, the minimum capital for ES is $ 1300 / 1c. I see how the recovery will go and whether the drawdown will increase.
2. Do not trade MES instead of ES. "Tumbling" with MNQ.
Over a long distance, systemic consistency always wins creative skill. But each system has its own weaknesses, its own boundary conditions.
For my system, a difficult condition is a neutral day controlled by non-daily players (participants transferring their positions through the night - short and long swing). For a long time and constantly the market cannot be in this state, because it is not effective. And it’s very good that such days have come - the possibility of a live stress-test of the system has appeared.
The 3rd Sigma event came yesterday. The maximum number of transactions per day (1.8 times higher than average) with a minimum% + (53% + with a break-even point of 64% +).
With an average% + 71% MLS (maximum number of losing trades in a row) in 3sd sigma = 5, MLDD (Maximum Drawdown) with a coefficient of 2 = -64 ticks. Yesterday there were 6 losing trades in a row and the total drawdown was -61.6 ticks.
There were days worse, but there were significantly fewer transactions, which did not give such a drawdown.
The trading time for the "complete" system is 22.5 hours per day. The system "My hours" is designed for 7 hours. This system yielded only 4 MLS and -33.4 MLDD, which is lower than planned (5 and -64).
In a low-plus system, commission begins to play a high role. Therefore, using MES instead of ES is not acceptable.
For a long time I wanted to see how the use of MES in a skidding system will affect. Using MES instead of ES halves net profit for a working system and drastically reduces it to a minus for a stalled one.
An alternative to MES is MNQ, where the commission / volatility ratio is better. But here it’s not a systematic, but a creative approach. Yesterday I felt MNQ:
The maximum MAE was -$30.50, NP +283.26. Thus, NP/MaxMAE = 9.2.
Traditionally, the market begins to breathe easier after the close of Europe (11:30 NY) and phasing combines with ^TICK.
Solutions:
1. Accept for the "complete" system MLS = 8 with MLDD = -102. For "My hour" leave 5 and -64. Consequently, the minimum capital for ES is $ 1300 / 1c. I see how the recovery will go and whether the drawdown will increase.
2. Do not trade MES instead of ES. "Tumbling" with MNQ.
Last edited:
Forwardtest #02
Two highlights of the week:
- How much do we pay for using MES instead of ES?
- The results of the stress-test system.
The total result of the week:
- On the one hand, I want to start trading MES from the point of view of risks, and on the other hand, if it’s good or bad, it doesn’t matter where to start, but if it starts near-zero drinking, you’ll slowly bleed to work for a broker.
- The main drawdown of the system occurred due to one setup - “k”. There are 26 deals on it - 13 positive and 13 negative. On this type of volatility it should be so. Different setups support each other in different types of markets. Here are the graphs of the complete system and without the “k” setup:
On the one hand, it’s okay and just requires a small increase in risk capital, on the other hand, such things are easily leveled by diversification. There is only one problem - the second as effective tool as ES does not exist on the market. Therefore, since the "system door" is closed, you have to climb into discrete trading - the great romance of conquistadors. Terribly fascinating and full of adventure, but absolutely not welcome. I don’t see another way to balance the potential risk of the system (which I don’t see right now, but I know that in practice, he wanders around like a hungry wolf). Welcome to NQ ...
Two highlights of the week:
- How much do we pay for using MES instead of ES?
- The results of the stress-test system.
The total result of the week:
- On the one hand, I want to start trading MES from the point of view of risks, and on the other hand, if it’s good or bad, it doesn’t matter where to start, but if it starts near-zero drinking, you’ll slowly bleed to work for a broker.
- The main drawdown of the system occurred due to one setup - “k”. There are 26 deals on it - 13 positive and 13 negative. On this type of volatility it should be so. Different setups support each other in different types of markets. Here are the graphs of the complete system and without the “k” setup:
On the one hand, it’s okay and just requires a small increase in risk capital, on the other hand, such things are easily leveled by diversification. There is only one problem - the second as effective tool as ES does not exist on the market. Therefore, since the "system door" is closed, you have to climb into discrete trading - the great romance of conquistadors. Terribly fascinating and full of adventure, but absolutely not welcome. I don’t see another way to balance the potential risk of the system (which I don’t see right now, but I know that in practice, he wanders around like a hungry wolf). Welcome to NQ ...
Forwardtest #02 NQ
I tested NQ in demo on Friday. The result turned out to be so discouraging that then I got tired and stopped. I had three questions:
1. How to trade?
2. When to trade?
3. What is the effect of replacing NQ with MNQ?
1. I tried to trade the inter-zone - one transaction on the {1} zoom when closing the DAX - I did not like MAE in terms of risks. Remains the good old scalping {0} zoom with graphs, DOM and rich imagination.
2. It seemed to me that the most qualitative moments and the greatest inertia of movements during the NYSE session, reverse volatility works better, phasing coincides with the general stock market.
3. When replacing NQ with MNQ, a few unpleasant moments:
- worse reverse volatility;
- there will be more slippage;
- it will be necessary to watch the DOM NQ, and trade in the DOM MNQ;
- the 1.5-fold commission kills a lot of profit and significantly reduces the margin of stability.
One solution is to increase the take-profit in NQ by 1-2 ticks, but it is not known what will come of it in practice.
Of course, the practice will be different. And I firmly remember the rule that there are more discrepancies between theory and practice in practice than in theory. Especially in discrete trading. For several reasons. But the first test of the pen is this:
(the numbers are a little distorted due to the fact that in the settings there was a commission for micro, not mini)
Conclusion:
- I liked the ticker;
- what, how and when to make it clear to me, it is not clear what will happen to the actual filling;
- difficulties for discrete trading are standard - a combination of the variability of market quality with the variability of one’s own thinking. And here, as never before, it is necessary to recall the word "discipline" - this is the decision to do what you do not like in order to have what you want.
I tested NQ in demo on Friday. The result turned out to be so discouraging that then I got tired and stopped. I had three questions:
1. How to trade?
2. When to trade?
3. What is the effect of replacing NQ with MNQ?
1. I tried to trade the inter-zone - one transaction on the {1} zoom when closing the DAX - I did not like MAE in terms of risks. Remains the good old scalping {0} zoom with graphs, DOM and rich imagination.
2. It seemed to me that the most qualitative moments and the greatest inertia of movements during the NYSE session, reverse volatility works better, phasing coincides with the general stock market.
3. When replacing NQ with MNQ, a few unpleasant moments:
- worse reverse volatility;
- there will be more slippage;
- it will be necessary to watch the DOM NQ, and trade in the DOM MNQ;
- the 1.5-fold commission kills a lot of profit and significantly reduces the margin of stability.
One solution is to increase the take-profit in NQ by 1-2 ticks, but it is not known what will come of it in practice.
Of course, the practice will be different. And I firmly remember the rule that there are more discrepancies between theory and practice in practice than in theory. Especially in discrete trading. For several reasons. But the first test of the pen is this:
(the numbers are a little distorted due to the fact that in the settings there was a commission for micro, not mini)
Conclusion:
- I liked the ticker;
- what, how and when to make it clear to me, it is not clear what will happen to the actual filling;
- difficulties for discrete trading are standard - a combination of the variability of market quality with the variability of one’s own thinking. And here, as never before, it is necessary to recall the word "discipline" - this is the decision to do what you do not like in order to have what you want.