This is exactly why you blew so many accounts in the past and will blow many more.
Instead of respecting your stop you started using martingale. This will never work in the long run, never.
not fooled by random market and by technical analysis
- Thread starter padutrader
- Start date
This is exactly why you blew so many accounts in the past and will blow many more.
Instead of respecting your stop you started using martingale. This will never work in the long run, never.
Hold on... he is using martingale betting strategy?
thanks for visiting
YOU ARE RIGHT.
it is not my normal strategy.....at least i hope not.
lucky to escape
the first trade was a stupid one.
i actually expected deep pull backs but it was not a strategy endorsed by either Brooks or Hansen
but the only pro is that i trade smaller than tiny. that is why i do not show my lot size
also i was not at terminal since it was well after my bedtime if not i would have got out on that spike. i closed once i woke up
Last edited:
at last a decent comment on ET i was losing faith in this great organisation
1) A statistical edge (by nature of the way game is set up and it’s rules)
2) Max capped bets
3) Uncorrelated bets (other tables)
4) law of large numbers
It’s luck to the player, not the casino.
If your strategy entails the risk of ruin(ruin doesn't need to be zero dollars, it is the point of maximum loss you can tolerate); then virtually all your gains are a result of luck.
For example, @padutrader, is getting called out for having a strategy that does not work over the long term, therefore, all his gains today, are a result of luck. He doesn't know this though, that is why @padutrader has been trading for 30 years and hits ruin multiple times(allegedly; so others have claimed, but he is also admitted?)
I'm an educated guy but it must be too late in the night for me because that statement went over my head. Sorry, I don't get it.
He's been trading for 30 years but not using this strategy in this thread for 30 years. Thus, I can not make any judgments about a strategy being used long term until it reaches whatever duration is long term.
In addition, others have also stated he doesn't use the strategy as designed and its discretionary (not automated). Thus, until we know every variable involved with his trading that results in it hitting risk of ruin multiple times...any judgment is too early considering he'll most likely use something else at a later date as he gains more experience with documenting his trading.
I've seen too many times in these trade journals where two different people using the same trade strategy while trading the same trading instrument...one trader is a loser and the other trader is a profitable.
Yet, you gotta take it with a grain of salt about these trade journals. Rarely will they go beyond a year. Thus, you're essentially making analysis about trading history less than a year and there has not been one trade journal at this forum that has used any sort of a professional trade journal to do the quantitative statistical analysis of the trade performance beyond one month.
Logic would imply that one of the traders is obviously using the strategy differently in comparison to the other while both strongly believe they are applying the strategy as designed.
Then again, in your camp, you random folks will say the profitable trader was just "lucky" instead of investigating the "applied differently" aspect as a key variable to the different trade results.
wrbtrader
Last edited:
It is imperative that you understand this point..
If a strategy carries the risk of ruin... for example, investing in the Inverse VIX ETF; chart below, whilst not carry a put option with it(as insurance)...he is carrying the risk of ruin.
If this individual trades whilst exposed to this risk of ruin, then he is lucky that he has not been ruined. Therefore, all the profits he has gained, can be solely attributed to luck.
Look at the chart, people who bought a position and held, without insurance, ended up being wiped out due to the 85-95% drop. The gains they experienced were a result of luck. They set themselves up to fail over the long term, and quickly collect as much profit they can in the short term. They were collecting nickels in front of a steamroller, and were lucky they weren't hit. Unlike the individual who was suspicious of his knowledge, and bought a put option. He was lucky enough to be fine.
Get it?
It is imperative that you understand this point..
If a strategy carries the risk of ruin... for example, investing in the Inverse VIX ETF; chart below, whilst not carry a put option with it(as insurance)...he is carrying the risk of ruin.
If this individual trades whilst exposed to this risk of ruin, then he is lucky that he has not been ruined. Therefore, all the profits he has gained, can be solely attributed to luck.
Look at the chart, people who bought a position and held, without insurance, ended up being wiped out due to the 85-95% drop. The gains they experienced were a result of luck. They set themselves up to fail over the long term, and quickly collect as much profit they can in the short term. They were collecting nickels in front of a steamroller, and were lucky they weren't hit. Unlike the individual who was suspicious of his knowledge, and bought a put option. He was lucky enough to be fine.
Get it?
I think you should stick to reality about why so few traders are profitable. They bank their profits prior to risk of ruin occurs.
wrbtrader
Thus a game of chance. Because you cannot predict when such risk emerges. Thx for vindicating me. You should edit your comment if you want to go back to your old view.
That would assume they know when such a risk of ruin would occur to then bank prior.
Make sense?