OKAY! I found the answer myself. Some of you suggested monte carlo, others suggested that there is NO normal distribution, and others said trading results are normally distributed but is proprietary info from the brokerages.
Well I will share with all of you generous people the results of my findings (and intuitions):
I was thinking about it (in the bathroom no less), that futures trading results HAS to be normally distributed around some % return be it -1% or 0 or +2% over some period of time.
Depends on how strict you want to be to a truely normal distribution. The main issue is kurtosis, the value which describes the 'look' of the distribution. Market data usually is "Leptokurtic" meaning it has an over abundance of data about the mean (generally 0, sometimes a bit above 0 = skew) and the over abundance of fat tails (data that falls far from the mean). A true normal distribution would be more 'squat' that is less near 0 values, more values in the middle (say between 1-3%) and far less over 5% values. So qualitatively, yes the market is 'normal' but quantitatively, it is not.
Here
Here is the answer.
The study, over 15 years of data from Barclays CTA Agriculture index return, shows the normal distribution of results from professionally managed futures accounts is:
0.40% / month
Normal distribution of trading results
If I'm getting 2% / month over 3-4 months on a 100k account, then I'm doing WELL. Sure my trading period is not enough time to make a very strong argument that I have skill and not just luck, HOWEVER, bottom line is my account is increasing in value by 7.5% over 3-4 months. In addition these past summer months were considered "difficult trading" by most professionals.
But were you trading agriculture-related stocks? I believe you are pushing the limits of comparative statistics. Kind of an apples to oranges comparison.
By the way, I practiced for 1 month papertrading before going live on May 25. I was short the flash crash and made a 10%+ return ($32k on a $300k account). One could add these results too - but I don't because it wasn't real money.
Anyway, now that I've determined the answer myself and learned a lot because of you all:
I just wanted to say thanks again for taking the time to teach. I hope this last post has helped you all learn too about the normal distribution of futures trading (my original question).
With respect to my trading colleagues,
Anesthesiaman
As for how I would approach your quandry. So to paraphrase, you want to compare your trading results to chance. Chance redefined is a random entry. Therefore you need to compare your results to random entries. Given you use of ToS (which has the worst paper trading platform ever, by the way), my guess is you cannot really backtest rigorously. If you could, you should just place random entries into the market and see the results compared to your results, looking at variables such as profit, std. dev of returns, profit factor, win%, etc. Choice of variables may be critical...I don't know.
Without backtesting, what I would do is roll 3 dice. 1 would be for the hour, 1 for the 10's of minutes, and 1 for the minutes (accepting the fact that only 6 of 10 possible minutes would result). So you roll a 3,2,5. You would place a trade in the third hour of trading at the 25 minute mark. Hold that trade for a period approximating you real trade time, and record the results. It's crude, kludgy, and non-robust, but it will provide some evidence on random market returns.
Glad to see Mike and Bill (as always) and good thread so far, hope my suggestions are logical and helpful.
Masterjaz