Tradingjournals Quest... Turn $100 To $100K or To Ash

Quote from tradingjournals:

e/u at 1.4606. My fingers (and my left ball) are itching, which, judging by the past, can be a sign for me to consider a trade.

Where are the mods? This thread needs you.
More...

I'm going to be very frank with you. I don't believe a thing you post in this thread. If the mods have a role here, it is to ask for verification from you that this account exists and this exact series of trades occurred. Are you willing to do this ?

My reason is that trading currency short term is subject to more of a random walk then 99% of trading. To hit as many winners as you claim is statistically improbable. But I am open to the idea thart you have found a special edge. But this must be verified or the THREAD CLOSED.

If you did have an edge, there would be more of a strategic focus on the journal. But again, there is not. Its just you saying random things and making trades based on gut reactions. Your journal is very unimpressive in this regard. Which again makes me doubt your win percentage, for obvious reasons.
 
Quote from Nine_Ender:

...

But I am open to the idea thart you have found a special edge. But this must be verified or the THREAD CLOSED.

....
More...

you surely demand a lot considering the fact that you never posted a live trade :eek:
 
Quote from tradingjournals:

I created an account of $100 to trade it for the purpose of this journal
More...

This is interesting. It has been done before. It is possible. Using heavy leverage, you could double your account once per month or more frequently. This presumes a robust methodology for taking net gains per day from the market, ideally with a strike rate north of 75%. Don't expect to do this forever, as when the inevitable bad run comes around the leverage used will take 35-50% of your account down.

Interesting experiment.
 
Blotto: Thanks for your comment. If the experiment were document somewhere I would be interested to read more about it. As comment on the the quote
Quote from Blotto:

Don't expect to do this forever, as when the inevitable bad run comes around the leverage used will take 35-50% of your account down.
More...


I would say that it is one of the reasons (there are others as written in response to question from Shortie) why I started with a leverage less than 1. The idea is that if a hit comes, at least it would be supported by some gains rather than taken from the contributed cash.
 
Quote from shortie:

you surely demand a lot considering the fact that you never posted a live trade :eek:
More...

If Nine_ender does not post some live trades, I would be interested to read his answers to any of the questions in the first post, for instance Q1.
 
Here is a question I am thinking about now. We assume that leverage is 1. Suppose one knew that price would rise by an amount A during a time period T. If one were to trade the purprose would then be to do better than A in time T. If one were to aim for 2A by trading in a timeframe lower than T, is there a value T* beyound which the probability to get 2A is practically zero. I am searching for the lowest such T*.

Any answers/comments/extensions to the question would be appreciated.
 
Quote from tradingjournals:

Here is a question I am thinking about now. We assume that leverage is 1. Suppose one knew that price would rise by an amount A during a time period T. If one were to trade the purprose would then be to do better than A in time T. If one were to aim for 2A by trading in a timeframe lower than T, is there a value T* beyound which the probability to get 2A is practically zero. I am searching for the lowest such T*.

Any answers/comments/extensions to the question would be appreciated.
More...

Can you rephrase that?

And if one knew that price would rise, why leverage it only by a factor of 1? Why not 50?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top