Risk of Ruin - Psychology and Money Management | futures.io
futures.io futures trading


Risk of Ruin
Started: by Big Mike Views / Replies:30,888 / 124
Last Reply: Attachments:41

Welcome to futures.io.

Welcome, Guest!

This forum was established to help traders (especially futures traders) by openly sharing indicators, strategies, methods, trading journals and discussing the psychology of trading.

We are fundamentally different than most other trading forums:
  • We work extremely hard to keep things positive on our forums.
  • We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendor advertising in posts.
  • We firmly believe in openness and encourage sharing. The holy grail is within you, it is not something tangible you can download.
  • We expect our members to participate and become a part of the community. Help yourself by helping others.


You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free and simple, and we will never resell your private information.

-- Big Mike

Reply
 41  
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
 

Risk of Ruin

  #91 (permalink)
Elite Member
Berlin, Europe
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: NinjaTrader, MultiCharts
Broker/Data: Interactive Brokers
Favorite Futures: Keyboard
 
Fat Tails's Avatar
 
Posts: 9,538 since Mar 2010
Thanks: 4,215 given, 24,940 received


rosariod View Post
First of all thanks for your help and for your time.

For sure a Monte Carlo Analysis is a good approach to determine the probability of reaching a fraction/multiple of your initial bankroll and I’ve already done it but I would like to find a formula and then, generalizing, apply it to different trading system on the same bankroll.
If I trade k different trading system on the same bankroll with k different f(i)I would like to have a function P(X,n) that give the probability that the bankroll is X fraction after n iterations.
Is it possible to have such function or I have to use Monte Carlo Analysis.

The problems of any model / closed formula are the model assumptions. The great economists have always failed, because they have applied their models without taking into account model limitations.

I have much more confidence in an empirical approach such as the Monte Carlo Analysis, compared to a theoretical approach such as the Kelly formula. If you are interested in applying the Kelly formula to your problems, I suggest that you work through the papers and books below.....


Links to papers on the Kelly Criterion:

http://edwardothorp.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/Column23understandingthekellycriterion.doc
http://edwardothorp.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/Good_Bad_Paper.pdf
http://edwardothorp.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/KellyCriterion2007.pdf
http://edwardothorp.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/KellySimulationsNew.pdf
http://www.efmaefm.org/0EFMAMEETINGS/EFMA%20ANNUAL%20MEETINGS/2011-Braga/papers/0103.pdf

Further get some elementary knowledge by reading these books ......

Amazon.com: The Doctrine of Chances: Probabilistic Aspects of Gambling (Probability and Its Applications) (9783540787822): Stewart N. Ethier: Books
Amazon.com: The Kelly Capital Growth Investment Criterion: Theory and Practice (World Scientific Handbook in Financial Economic) (9789814293495): Leonard C. MacLean, Edward O. Thorp, William T. Ziemba: Books
Amazon.com: Scenarios for Risk Management and Global Investment Strategies (The Wiley Finance Series) (9780470319246): Rachel E. S. Ziemba, William T. Ziemba: Books


If you think that this is complicated stuff, then you should consider a Monte Carlo Analysis instead.

Reply With Quote
The following 4 users say Thank You to Fat Tails for this post:
 
  #92 (permalink)
Site Administrator
Manta, Ecuador
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Favorite Futures: E-mini ES S&P 500
 
Big Mike's Avatar
 
Posts: 45,652 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 29,044 given, 80,653 received

A few months off, but Ernie Chan will be doing a webinar on futures.io (formerly BMT) in January that focuses on Capital Allocation and Risk management using Kelly:

https://futures.io/psychology-money-management/23249-webinar-ernest-chan-capital...nt-kelly.html#post264153

Mike

Due to time constraints, please do not PM me if your question can be resolved or answered on the forum.

Need help?
1) Stop changing things. No new indicators, charts, or methods. Be consistent with what is in front of you first.
2) Start a journal and post to it daily with the trades you made to show your strengths and weaknesses.
3) Set goals for yourself to reach daily. Make them about how you trade, not how much money you make.
4) Accept responsibility for your actions. Stop looking elsewhere to explain away poor performance.
5) Where to start as a trader? Watch this webinar and read this thread for hundreds of questions and answers.
6)
Help using the forum? Watch this video to learn general tips on using the site.

If you want
to support our community, become an Elite Member.

Reply With Quote
The following 8 users say Thank You to Big Mike for this post:
 
  #93 (permalink)
Elite Member
Berlin, Europe
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: NinjaTrader, MultiCharts
Broker/Data: Interactive Brokers
Favorite Futures: Keyboard
 
Fat Tails's Avatar
 
Posts: 9,538 since Mar 2010
Thanks: 4,215 given, 24,940 received



OxfordStrat View Post
P. Kaufman offers different formulas in different books. Since the source is the Ralph Vince's book "Portfolio Management Formulas", I consider Vince's formula the correct one (attachment).

I would not consider Kaufman as a reference for the risk of ruin. Ralph Vince certainly is.

The formula that you have attached looks nice, but I believe that it is incorrect. Here are the reasons. If you have a winning percentage, an average winning and average losing trade, this tells you nothing about the dispersion of the trades.

Example: Let us assume that your winning percentage is 60% and that both your average winning and losing trades are 2% of your initial capital.

Scenario 1: all winning trades yield +2.0%, all losing trades yield -2.0%
Scenario 2: 50% of winning trades yield +0.50%, the other 50% of winning trades yield +3.52%, 50% of losing trades yield -0.50%, the other 50% yield - 3.48%

For both scenarios you would have identical input variables for the model put forward by Ralph Vince, so they will both show the same risk of ruin. However, the second scenario produces a higher risk of ruin than the first one. The reason is that the dispersion of the trades around the mean is larger than for the first scenario. The model by Ralph Vince does not take into account the variance of the average winning and losing trade, but only uses the arithmetic mean. I therefore believe that both the models of Perry Kaufman and Ralph Vince are inherently flawed. Unfortunately I am not capable to come up with something better, but for further research I would rather rely on Edward O. Thorpe than Ralph Vincent.


Last edited by Fat Tails; September 23rd, 2012 at 06:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
The following 6 users say Thank You to Fat Tails for this post:
 
  #94 (permalink)
Elite Member
Toronto, Canada
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: NT
Broker/Data: TD Ameritrade, Dorman/Zenfire
Favorite Futures: CL,ES
 
VinceVirgil's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,752 since Aug 2011
Thanks: 2,144 given, 9,176 received


OxfordStrat View Post
With unknown distribution of trades, all formulas are misleading. Plus all the above formulas ignore the dynamic leverage. An example (attachment) is the portfolio of 25 futures markets -- this whale shaped "thing" starts to crack around Risk = 6% (fixed fractional sizing). When you increase the number of markets in portfolio, the "crack" shifts towards left, and when you reduce the number of markets in portfolio, it shifts towards right. I am sure you are aware of this fact, but I am always astonished how many traders have some canned answers like "never risk xx% of portfolio".

I have to admit, I am having a little difficulty understanding this.

Is there a simpler explanation? Or is it simplified as much as possible.

I had a real hard time in calculas for engineers. The instructor spoke with a thick Polish accent, so it was like learning 2 languages simlutaneously.

Do you have an explanation for art majors?

Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to VinceVirgil for this post:
 
  #95 (permalink)
Elite Member
Arizona, USA
 
Futures Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NinjaTrader
Broker/Data: MB Trading
Favorite Futures: Cello
 
serac's Avatar
 
Posts: 116 since Jan 2011
Thanks: 321 given, 135 received

Accounting for Variance is Scary

Futures Edge on FIO

Which products do you trade?

 

Fat Tails View Post
The model by Ralph Vince does not take into account the variance of the average winning and losing trade, but only uses the arithmetic mean. I therefore believe that both the models of Perry Kaufman and Ralph Vince are inherently flawed.

Agreed. Introducing the influence of the variances is conceptually not difficult. I suppose there are several ways do do it.

If I take the PDF document above, and substitute the equations, I get a nice formula for the risk of ruin (RR) as a function of probability of a winning trade, average loss, and average gain. This gives the RR as a function of the mean inputs. We are interested in this, as well as the deviation from the mean due to variance of the inputs. Let's call this the sensitivity of the risk of ruin, or delta-RR.

The value of delta-RR is the sum of the sensitivities of RR due to the variances of each input. The sensitivity of RR due to one input is the standard deviation of that input times the change in RR with respect to that input. As you may know, the "the change in RR with respect to that input" is jsut another way of saying "the derivative of RR with respect to that input" [the vector containing each of the derivatives with respect to each input is a Jacobian, of sorts].

Unfortunately, doing all the math yields fairly lengthy equations. Let me summarize:

Reproducing the first figure for a profit factor of 2, and assuming a standard deviation of 5% for pWin, Lavg%, and profit factor, I get a much different picture. Without taking the 5% standard deviations into account, I calculate a RR of 16% for a Lavg% of 5%. However, assuming the standard deviations, I get a worst-case RR of 68%.

In the figure below, the red line is the same line as the Wavg%/Lavg% = 2.00 line in t he first figure of the pdf. The Blue line is based on the red line calculation, but including 5% standard deviation for pWin, Lavg%, and Wavg%. Note that is with with pWin, Lavg%, and Wavg% all hitting their low mark at the same time. This analysis does not account for the probability that you are unlucky with three statistics simultaneously.
Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).

Reply With Quote
The following 5 users say Thank You to serac for this post:
 
  #96 (permalink)
Elite Member
Berlin, Europe
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: NinjaTrader, MultiCharts
Broker/Data: Interactive Brokers
Favorite Futures: Keyboard
 
Fat Tails's Avatar
 
Posts: 9,538 since Mar 2010
Thanks: 4,215 given, 24,940 received


serac View Post
Agreed. Introducing the influence of the variances is conceptually not difficult. I suppose there are several ways do do it.

If I take the PDF document above, and substitute the equations, I get a nice formula for the risk of ruin (RR) as a function of probability of a winning trade, average loss, and average gain. This gives the RR as a function of the mean inputs. We are interested in this, as well as the deviation from the mean due to variance of the inputs. Let's call this the sensitivity of the risk of ruin, or delta-RR.

The value of delta-RR is the sum of the sensitivities of RR due to the variances of each input. The sensitivity of RR due to one input is the standard deviation of that input times the change in RR with respect to that input. As you may know, the "the change in RR with respect to that input" is jsut another way of saying "the derivative of RR with respect to that input" [the vector containing each of the derivatives with respect to each input is a Jacobian, of sorts].

Unfortunately, doing all the math yields fairly lengthy equations.

Don't hesitate to attach a document with your equations.

Reply With Quote
The following 2 users say Thank You to Fat Tails for this post:
 
  #97 (permalink)
Elite Member
Arizona, USA
 
Futures Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NinjaTrader
Broker/Data: MB Trading
Favorite Futures: Cello
 
serac's Avatar
 
Posts: 116 since Jan 2011
Thanks: 321 given, 135 received


Fat Tails View Post
Don't hesitate to attach a document with your equations.

Well, then. Here you go.

The PDF has my (fairly roough) derivation in Mathematica.

The txt file has the Mathematica output in C. A few minutes of massaging will make it work in C# (I am not at NinjaTrader now, else I would do it).

Attached Thumbnails
Risk of Ruin-deltarr.pdf  
Attached Files
Register to download File Type: txt deltaRRcode.txt (2.0 KB, 37 views)
Reply With Quote
The following 5 users say Thank You to serac for this post:
 
  #98 (permalink)
Trading Apprentice
Paris / France
 
Futures Experience: Beginner
Platform: MetaTrader
Favorite Futures: EUR/USD
 
Posts: 6 since Dec 2012
Thanks: 0 given, 2 received

sometimes i thought you speak chinese

Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to Inol for this post:
 
  #99 (permalink)
Trading Apprentice
euroland
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: R
Favorite Futures: futures
 
Posts: 5 since May 2012
Thanks: 1 given, 3 received

Great thread.
I think there are two way to get an approximate estimates of risk of ruin, starting from history of past trades: i) using bootstrap, if you think future return/variance space shall be sample of past, ii) using a known PDF, closest to past trades PDF.
I remember an old paper about kelly criterion applied to t-student PDF (R. Osorio, 2008): stock returns PDF seem (?!) close to a 4.5 df t-student.
I have made some attempts using Johnson PDF (it accepts first four stat moments as inputs) but my preference is about bootstrap.
happy new year

Reply With Quote
 
  #100 (permalink)
Elite Member
Brussels / Dublin
 
Futures Experience: Intermediate
Platform: ninjatrader
Favorite Futures: Stdev + 2
 
Posts: 467 since Jun 2010
Thanks: 842 given, 590 received

So does anyone actually use kelly ?


So here is one of my strategies and i removed the number of contracts performing scale in and scale out to see what percentage i receive from a base state (of 1 contract). As you can see the numbers are high enough (trend following). It suggests to put 37% of capital at full force however ed thorp suggests when he was doing trend following he would perform at around 1/10 | 1/20 of kelly. If we suggest that the figures are right this would mean 37% / 20 = 1.85% risk per trade at 1/20 .

I'm wondering would it be interesting to segregate an account and throw 10K at it and see what happens.

Anyone using it explicitly in there trading ?

Its more difficult to use in futures due to the leveraged nature but i wonder using spread options maybe a lot better.

Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).


Some interesting reading:

http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~cfm/Chicago_Kelly.ppt

Reply With Quote
The following 5 users say Thank You to leinster for this post:

Reply



futures.io > > > Risk of Ruin

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Upcoming Webinars and Events (4:30PM ET unless noted)

2016 True Edge Awards: Voting is open until Jan 21!

Now
 

Bookmap New Indicator Panel, Cumulative Delta, Order Flow demo

Jan 17
 

An Afternoon with FIO member Massive l

Elite only

Leo Murphy: Making sense of Technical Analysis and Random Walk

Elite only
 

FuturesTrader71: Ask Me Anything

Elite only
     

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More Contracts = Less Risk hondo69 Psychology and Money Management 27 October 25th, 2014 12:07 PM
Risk/Reward Calculator baruchs NinjaTrader 5 December 10th, 2013 06:56 AM
Even the Fed Canít Value Financialsí Risk Quick Summary News and Current Events 0 November 14th, 2011 04:30 PM
ZN low risk JTrain Bonds and Interest Rates Trading 9 January 11th, 2011 06:11 PM
Effective risk sefstrat Psychology and Money Management 5 October 17th, 2009 12:37 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:04 AM.

no new posts
Page generated 2017-01-17 in 0.18 seconds with 20 queries on phoenix via your IP 23.23.37.116