This is basically the same error that I had with my calculations (though not the only one).
So I am tempted to conclude that the formula is wrong.
Perhaps we can come up with a better formula?
vvhg
Hic Rhodos, hic salta.
The following 2 users say Thank You to vvhg for this post:
Apparently the risk of ruin increases the longer someone trades with a, let's say 60% win rate. (55%, 72%, etc.)
I don't know if anyone covered this already. The only thing that can help is to trade smaller when one is trading
badly, if I understand the conclusion at the link.
=================================================================
Conclusion In agreement with Kaufman the risk of ruin is greatest at the beginning. The risk of ruin also increases the longer your remain a trader because the risk of experiencing a series of losses increases.
The risk of ruin in our example would remain the same as the risk at the beginning if we did not scale back when we started to hit a series of losing trades. By scaling to smaller trade sizes as our portfolio is reduced we lower the risk of ruin and improve our survival rate.
there is nothing there about 'risk of ruin'. He has a great many videos about Probability, Statistics and Finance.
You could spend too too much time there however. Trying to re-invent the wheel.
Maybe you could e-mail him to do a video on the subject. He (they) seems to love to learn and teach.
Maybe we could look at this from a more practical standpoint.
If you keep track of the different trade setups you take, you might be able to eliminate the lower probability ones.
I really don't have a list in my head, but there are upward breakouts vs. double (or triple) bottoms. They are similar
in that one expects the price to move upwards.
Do you personally make more with one type or the other? If you just trade breakouts, then we'd have to modify
the question somehow.
Anyway, maybe there are some reasons why you make less in certain circumstances.
- Stephen
The following user says Thank You to stephenszpak for this post:
The more I think about the risk of ruin formulas, the more I come to the conclusion that first they seem to be more a kind of educated guess than hard fact and secondly (as also stated in the link @Silver Dragon posted) the obtained values seem to be rather relative and should not be mistaken as absolute values.
So this would lead me away from these calculations again and back to the good old monte carlo engine.... I will try to improve and pimp the one in the journal (here) so that it is ( more than ) a full substitute for the ror calculations.
I would appreciate your views on that...
I personally do that (at least in some degree of detail) and I think that it is a very good thing to do. But the risk of ruin would need to be calculated for the mix of methods you actually trade. Though it would be interesting to know it for individual setups or instruments. I think I could realize that using the monte carlo engine....
Vvhg
Hic Rhodos, hic salta.
The following 2 users say Thank You to vvhg for this post:
But the risk of ruin would need to be calculated for the mix of methods you actually trade.
Reminds me of something I read long ago. Can't remember exactly though, something like:
Traders can't win without an 'edge'. But they have a hard time defining exactly what that 'edge' is.
One very basic thing to check out is, perhaps, a monthly profits graph. This is something I'm just throwing out,
it's not scientific really. There must be a standard, but I don't know what it is. So, graph the profit (or loss) per
month. Assuming, hopefully, there are just profits, is the graph steady or increasing? If not there is a problem.
What one is doing is looking at the actual dollar results of 10's of trades.
The number that broke even, or were losers, or were winners, is not relevant here.
I'm sure there are many factors that can cause losses, and therefore increase the
risk of ruin that aren't often considered.
Some of them are:
Is the trader getting enough restful sleep?
Is the trader trading worse after X hours (let's say 4) than when he/she began the trading day?
Why? fatigue? boredom?
Is there a severe and on-going distraction in the traders life? (e.g. is a family member extremely ill ?)
Is the trader thinking about buying something expensive which can only be bought with trading gains?
This is another distraction, of course. This one is directly related to trading, since it causes impatience
in the act of trading.
Ad astra
- Stephen
The following user says Thank You to stephenszpak for this post:
Very good post indeed. I have to agree with about all of it. Many things you mentioned are actually in the journal (here). Have you had a look at it? And what do you think about using a good monte carlo engine instead of ror formulas ( or even basing some ror calculation on actual monte carlo results).
vvhg
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Hic Rhodos, hic salta.
The following 2 users say Thank You to vvhg for this post:
No I haven't seen your journal.
I know nothing about monte carlo engines or ror formulas.
I wonder if anyone anywhere has ever done a comprehensive list of things that can cause ongoing
trading losses (in other words 'likely ruin'). There are the technical things, like 'The instrument I trade
just isn't moving like it used to.' or the psychological 'I used to make money.
I guess I was just lucky then.'
Some believe that if a trade failed, it failed because of an error on the traders part.
Others believe that if a trade failed, there can be no explanation. Some will fail, period.
I can't say which is best really. I would say that if one is experiencing hard trading times
that there should be a search for the reason. Hard trading times, means the risk of ruin
for the trader has already increased.
This saying has its merits, but one has to remember why traders trade. Traders trade
to make money. If you're making some money it's great to say "I'm following my rules. That's
the main thing." It sounds good anyway.
If you're losing money consistently it's crazy to say "I'm following my rules. That's
the main thing."
If a trader is losing consistently over time 'feeling nothing' isn't going to help. If nothing
on paper, that is, all the losses, aren't getting any attention, the best thing for the trader
would be to experience fear, or at least concern.
Ignoring ongoing losses is denying the existence of a serious problem, that is, likely ruin.
- Stephen
The following user says Thank You to stephenszpak for this post:
).
