You guys blowing out your accounts left and right

[Scataphagos]

Hmm... Tell me, if you expose 1% of your portfolio, how could you lose more than 1% of it, for the rest is not exposed?

The percentages have been mixed up in the course of this discussion. It went from volatility to risk and finally to exposure. These are not the same thing.

An exemple: By going 100% exposure with a 1% stop on some stuff that has a 2% daily volatility, statistically speaking, you may expect to be stopped out of your position in half a day or so.

You don't have to play anything with "2% daily volatility", nor do you have to tolerate that level of noise risk. For this time, "2% volatility" in the ES would be 54 points. If you need/want to risk that much, you obviously don't know what you're doing! Plus.... the "time" it takes to hit your stop is irrelevant.

 

[Scataphagos]

We're all born different. We have different values, different goals and of course, live different lives.

The market doesn't GIVE ONE CRAP about any that! The market is "the market"... its price is the final arbiter of all things related.

 

[Neuroway]

This book was written in 1989. I thought it was closer to 2000. Why do so many people keep referencing old "outdated" information?

Considering the new esoteric world we live in, full of fuzzy, emotional, half constructed and weak ideas from self-confident people addicted to their electronic gadgets, with an attention span of 4 minutes or less, I'd say that old has become much sexier than before, when all that old could brag about was genocides, industrialism, patriotism and the epic destruction of two bloody world wars. This one for instance: from 1951. Still unbeaten today. It's a classic, a pillar of game theory, which can be applied to finance and trading, once you understand it.

http://www.cs.upc.edu/~ia/nash51.pdf

 

[jinxu]

Well, show me a close to 100% win system with a volatility of 1% and I'll show you a poorly optimized jewel. Or you take too few trades, or the trades you take are not big enough. You can easily double your gains with it. By pimping the volatility, of course.

I've said it before here but it was a long time ago. The advantage of having a system with 100% win rate is that you can have low capital and higher risk tolerance. So in the case of blowing up, you can always start over. It is much easier to raise a $1000 grand then it is to raise up a 100k. Which is why I think Mr. S is so anal about risk control. Now he just said and confirm what I have suspected.

Then you can be suspecious of me, Buckeroo.

My capital was hard to come by, and I figured that if I "lost it all" I was out. Period. There would be "no restocking of capital... no 2nd chance". Therefore, I always traded with as tight of stops as I felt I could get away with.

(Biggest mistatke I ever made... which I guess one could say was the equivalent of "blowing it all", though it was before the time when I started trading... 1st time I got enough money together, I paid cash for a BMW. Wish I would have bought MSFT stock instead... could have later bought a BMW DEALERSHIP with the gains.)

 

[Neuroway]

I've said it before here but it was a long time ago. The advantage of having a system with 100% win rate is that you can have low capital and higher risk tolerance. So in the case of blowing up, you can always start over. It is much easier to raise a $1000 grand then it is to raise up a 100k. Which is why I think Mr. S is so anal about risk control. Now he just said and confirm what I have suspected.

There is no system with a 100% win rate, dear jinxu. Consider, for instance, a very simple physical system constituted of a bottle of Budweiser and one very normal All-Merican big Trump fan, barely able to talk and write in decent English, with an IQ of 100 or less. You tell the poor dude that you just created a perfect job for him and that now he is going to be paid to lift the bottle of beer without breaking it. Well, at some point in time, the system is going to lose. Because the guy is going to fall asleep, have a hart attack, need to take a break to sing his national anthem or waive his local flag on his porch or whatever you can think of.

 

[jinxu]

Uh, Do you call people "dear" in real life?

Here is an example of a system with a 100% win rate. Buy Bitcoin in 2010 at $1. Hold for 10 years. Now be a Billionaire in 2018. 100% win rate.

It's a little vague, but hopefully you get the point.

 

[Neuroway]

Uh, Do you call people "dear" in real life?

Here is an example of a system with a 100% win rate. Buy Bitcoin in 2010 at $1. Hold for 10 years. Now be a Billionaire in 2018. 100% win rate.

It's a little vague, but hopefully you get the point.

I never call people "dear" in real life. Except if they are Chinese, of course.

Seriously, there is no idea to get. 1+1 = 2 is not a physical system. It is an equation. Just like your statement that bitcoin was $1 in 2010. You don't build a system by stating that 1+1 = 2. All right. I'm running a bit late. Enough for today. Gotta run. Arrivederci!

 

[jinxu]

I never call people "dear" in real life. Except if they are Chinese, of course.

I'm not Chinese

 

[syswizard]

Uh, Do you call people "dear" in real life?

Here is an example of a system with a 100% win rate. Buy Bitcoin in 2010 at $1. Hold for 10 years. Now be a Billionaire in 2018. 100% win rate.

It's a little vague, but hopefully you get the point.

All I can say is ...
beware of "systems" with an extremely low frequency of trading.
If they win, it's a statistical anomaly.
Not enough data points to be conclusive statistically.

 

[Neuroway]

I'm not Chinese

I couldn't care less where you are from, where you are born or what your tribal allegiances are, jinxu. I didn't ask if you were Chinese or not. Why tell me? I'm not your psychologist. "Dear" is a form of politesse in many parts in the world. And humour is a way to defuse tense moments. If you don't know that, well, I'm sorry for you.