Why 7% is the Difference between Failure and Success in Trading - Psychology and Money Management | futures io social day trading
futures io futures trading


Why 7% is the Difference between Failure and Success in Trading
Updated: Views / Replies:19,204 / 107
Created: by Anagami Attachments:7

Welcome to futures io.

(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)

futures io is the largest futures trading community on the planet, with over 90,000 members. At futures io, our goal has always been and always will be to create a friendly, positive, forward-thinking community where members can openly share and discuss everything the world of trading has to offer. The community is one of the friendliest you will find on any subject, with members going out of their way to help others. Some of the primary differences between futures io and other trading sites revolve around the standards of our community. Those standards include a code of conduct for our members, as well as extremely high standards that govern which partners we do business with, and which products or services we recommend to our members.

At futures io, our focus is on quality education. No hype, gimmicks, or secret sauce. The truth is: trading is hard. To succeed, you need to surround yourself with the right support system, educational content, and trading mentors Ė all of which you can find on futures io, utilizing our social trading environment.

With futures io, you can find honest trading reviews on brokers, trading rooms, indicator packages, trading strategies, and much more. Our trading review process is highly moderated to ensure that only genuine users are allowed, so you donít need to worry about fake reviews.

We are fundamentally different than most other trading sites:
  • We are here to help. Just let us know what you need.
  • We work extremely hard to keep things positive in our community.
  • We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts.
  • We firmly believe in and encourage sharing. The holy grail is within you, we can help you find it.
  • 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.

-- Big Mike, Site Administrator

Reply
 7  
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
 

Why 7% is the Difference between Failure and Success in Trading

  #21 (permalink)
Live Your Bliss
Canary Islands, Spain
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: OA
Favorite Futures: What Moves
 
Anagami's Avatar
 
Posts: 701 since Dec 2010
Thanks: 474 given, 1,398 received


DionysusToast View Post
Edges are stronger on a higher timeframe?

Can I ask where you get that from? The edge that 99% of prop firms teach is trading off the order book, which is arguably the lowest timeframe of them all.

As for reducing your opportunity by 81 - how did you calculate this? Surely opportunity is measured by what comes along and not by a mathematical formula...

The thread is not about higher timeframes or even about edges on lower timeframes.

The thread is about the percentage of improvement that is necessary for profitability. (though you are welcome to discuss other issues as you choose, but that doesn't mean I'm terribly interested in them. ).

Daily chart - 1 bar a day.
5 min chart - 81 bars a day.

Therefore, there is theoretically 81 times more opportunity.

"...the degree to which you think you know, assume you know, or in any way need to know what is going to happen next, is equal to the degree to which you will fail as a trader." - Mark Douglas
Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to Anagami for this post:
 
  #22 (permalink)
Market Wizard
Bangkok
 
Futures Experience: Intermediate
Platform: MultiCharts.NET, S5, Ninj
Broker/Data: AMP, S5, IB
Favorite Futures: ES
 
DionysusToast's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,668 since Nov 2010
Thanks: 776 given, 8,721 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary


Anagami View Post
The thread is not about higher timeframes or even about edges on lower timeframes.

The thread is about the percentage of improvement that is necessary for profitability. (though you are welcome to discuss other issues as you choose, but that doesn't mean I'm terribly interested in them. ).

Daily chart - 1 bar a day.
5 min chart - 81 bars a day.

Therefore, there is theoretically 81 times more opportunity.

So, you are a man of platitudes?

If you want to put out statements of 'wisdom', surely you should be able to back them up, right?

What is the point of you making bold statements if you then withdraw from putting some meat on the bone?

Is this thread not a discussion?

Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to DionysusToast for this post:
 
  #23 (permalink)
Live Your Bliss
Canary Islands, Spain
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: OA
Favorite Futures: What Moves
 
Anagami's Avatar
 
Posts: 701 since Dec 2010
Thanks: 474 given, 1,398 received



DionysusToast View Post
So, you are a man of platitudes?

If you want to put out statements of 'wisdom', surely you should be able to back them up, right?

What is the point of you making bold statements if you then withdraw from putting some meat on the bone?

Not sure what your gripe is, but it doesn't seem like you took your meds this morning. I would strongly suggest you don't trade in this mood.

I provided nothing but solid simulation data to show the point of this thread: the difference between failure and success in trading can be as 'little' as 7%. But it does not seem you are capable of grasping that.

"...the degree to which you think you know, assume you know, or in any way need to know what is going to happen next, is equal to the degree to which you will fail as a trader." - Mark Douglas
Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to Anagami for this post:
 
  #24 (permalink)
Market Wizard
Bangkok
 
Futures Experience: Intermediate
Platform: MultiCharts.NET, S5, Ninj
Broker/Data: AMP, S5, IB
Favorite Futures: ES
 
DionysusToast's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,668 since Nov 2010
Thanks: 776 given, 8,721 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary


Anagami View Post
Not sure what your gripe is, but it doesn't seem like you took your meds this morning. I would strongly suggest you don't trade in this mood.

I provided nothing but solid simulation data to show the point of this thread: the difference between failure and success in trading can be as 'little' as 7%. But it does not seem you are capable of grasping that.

I have no gripe.

When you say "Yes, edges are stronger on higher timeframe", I think it is fair to investigate that and discuss why you think this is the case.

This is a discussion forum and I like to discuss. I would like to know why you think edges are stronger on a higher timeframe. It may be obvious to you but to me, it is not obvious.

You brought this fact to the discussion, you could at least show the courtesy to discuss the point you made.

I don't care either way to be honest, I just like to explore other people's opinions.

Reply With Quote
The following 2 users say Thank You to DionysusToast for this post:
 
  #25 (permalink)
Elite Member
Austin, TX
 
Futures Experience: Master
Platform: ninjatrader, r-trader
Favorite Futures: CL, NG, TF, NQ, YM, GC, ES
 
liquidcci's Avatar
 
Posts: 862 since Jun 2011
Thanks: 609 given, 1,051 received


eudamonia View Post
Interesting analysis. From my own testing I've found that edges become relatively stronger the higher the timeframe (and holding time) of the trade. The more often you trade, the greater the vig and the more difficult it is to obtain an edge. So why trade short-term?

Undercapitalized
Bored



But also you learn a heck of a lot faster and you can execute a smaller edge over many more trades. Which smooths your equity curve substantially.

I primarily trade intraday because of overnight risk. The shorter time frame you are exposed to the market the less risk.

"The day I became a winning trader was the day it became boring. Daily losses no longer bother me and daily wins no longer excited me. Took years of pain and busting a few accounts before finally got my mind right. I survived the darkness within and now just chillax and let my black box do the work."
Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to liquidcci for this post:
 
  #26 (permalink)
10 out of 10
Sacramento, CA
 
Futures Experience: None
Platform: None
Broker/Data: OX and DeCarley
Favorite Futures: Futures options
 
eudamonia's Avatar
 
Posts: 310 since Jul 2010
Thanks: 299 given, 424 received


DionysusToast View Post
I have no gripe.

When you say "Yes, edges are stronger on higher timeframe", I think it is fair to investigate that and discuss why you think this is the case.

This is a discussion forum and I like to discuss. I would like to know why you think edges are stronger on a higher timeframe. It may be obvious to you but to me, it is not obvious.

You brought this fact to the discussion, you could at least show the courtesy to discuss the point you made.

I don't care either way to be honest, I just like to explore other people's opinions.

Actually, I was the one who made the statement.

The smaller your holding time the smaller your targets. If a "price swing", whatever way you define it is an average of 50 points when holding for several weeks it might only be 5 points or even 5 ticks when holding smaller time frames (such as 2 hours or perhaps even 2 minutes).

As these targets become smaller your commissions and spread do not diminish. Therefore, the vig becomes a more substantial portion of your net profit. It is not uncommon that a swing trading method that has a 5% vig taking 5 trades per month would encounter a 25-30% vig taking 5 trades per day.

Therefore, your net profit and edge per trade goes way down the smaller your holding time. Of course, your opportunities go up.

Lastly, the purpose of a "prop firm" would be for that firm to make money. They make money when you take trades. Not when you are profitable. So it makes a good deal of sense to them that they teach a high trade frequency method. But that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with making good traders.

Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to eudamonia for this post:
 
  #27 (permalink)
Live Your Bliss
Canary Islands, Spain
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: OA
Favorite Futures: What Moves
 
Anagami's Avatar
 
Posts: 701 since Dec 2010
Thanks: 474 given, 1,398 received


DionysusToast View Post
I have no gripe.

When you say "Yes, edges are stronger on higher timeframe", I think it is fair to investigate that and discuss why you think this is the case.

This is a discussion forum and I like to discuss. I would like to know why you think edges are stronger on a higher timeframe. It may be obvious to you but to me, it is not obvious.

You brought this fact to the discussion, you could at least show the courtesy to discuss the point you made.

I don't care either way to be honest, I just like to explore other people's opinions.

Perhaps you could at least show the courtesy of not hijacking a thread that is about something else.

I'm sure the fact that you're a vendor selling short-term trading products for $350 has nothing to do with any of your opinions.

"...the degree to which you think you know, assume you know, or in any way need to know what is going to happen next, is equal to the degree to which you will fail as a trader." - Mark Douglas

Last edited by Anagami; May 3rd, 2012 at 02:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users say Thank You to Anagami for this post:
 
  #28 (permalink)
Live Your Bliss
Canary Islands, Spain
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: OA
Favorite Futures: What Moves
 
Anagami's Avatar
 
Posts: 701 since Dec 2010
Thanks: 474 given, 1,398 received

Continuing after being so rudely interrupted by an obnoxious vendor with his own agenda , let us look at 1:1 RR. This is an extremely common ratio. Many traders and algos take profits (usually at least partial) at the point where their gain equals their initial risk. Thus 1:1 RR makes for an interesting study.

The parameters are the same as previously, except the RR is 1:1.

Case 1: 50% Winning (Random)

Not terribly interesting, but a good starting point. Evenly distributed trials as expected.... the cost of trading will sink you though, need to improve the winning percentage.

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


Case 2: 55% Winning (Improved)

Say we improve our winning % by 5 percent. Profitable or not?

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


Looking at the results, one is more likely to be, but not strongly so. Because of vig, much more likely to be break even at 1:1 RR at 55%.

Case 3: 60% Winning (Profitable)

At 60%, we encounter a much healthier picture.

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


Notice that for the first time, none of the trials finished below the starting point, meaning the odds of being in the negative after 386 trades are less than 0.01%.

Case 4: 70% (Expert)

We take a very significant jump here out of being 'merely' profitable to being proficiently so.

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


Achieving 70% at 1:1 RR is difficult (though attainable as I'm sure some members will remind me).

Case 5: 80% (Master)

Master level would require having an incredible insight and very high level of selectivity (i.e. a-hole the size of a decimal point ).

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


Now, let's look at the ratios of the maximum positive trial (MAX VALUE) to the maximum negative trials (MIN VALUE).

At 1:1 RR, at 50% Winning Rate, the ratio is about: 1.
At 1:1 RR, at 55% Winning Rate, the ratio is about: 2.
At 1:1 RR, at 60% Winning Rate, the ratio is about: 6.
At 1:1 RR, at 70% Winning Rate, the ratio is about: 17.
At 1:1 RR, at 80% Winning Rate, the ratio is about: 42.
Recall from the first post that for 1:2 RR, at 40% (minimum ballpark level determined for profitability), the ratio was 5.

Important Question: Which is easier to achieve? Which one should the trader strive for?

1) 1:2 RR @ 40% winning rate
vs.
2) 1:1 RR @ 60% winning rate

Of course, the answer depends on many factors including the 3 Ms (mind, method, and money).

#2 is clearly better in terms of the trials. No trials finished below the starting point. Something to consider.

For that matter, because of similar excursion ratios, we could compare:

a) 1:2 RR @ 50% winning rate
vs.
b) 1:1 RR @ 70% winning rate

"...the degree to which you think you know, assume you know, or in any way need to know what is going to happen next, is equal to the degree to which you will fail as a trader." - Mark Douglas

Last edited by Anagami; May 3rd, 2012 at 03:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
The following 17 users say Thank You to Anagami for this post:
 
  #29 (permalink)
Elite Member
Austin, TX
 
Futures Experience: Master
Platform: ninjatrader, r-trader
Favorite Futures: CL, NG, TF, NQ, YM, GC, ES
 
liquidcci's Avatar
 
Posts: 862 since Jun 2011
Thanks: 609 given, 1,051 received


Anagami View Post

Important Question: Which is easier to achieve? Which one should the trader strive for?

1) 1:2 RR @ 40% winning rate
vs.
2) 1:1 RR @ 60% winning rate

Of course, the answer depends on many factors including the 3 Ms (mind, method, and money).

#2 is clearly better in terms of the trials. No trials finished below the starting point. Something to consider.

For that matter, because of similar ratios, we could compare:

a) 1:2 RR @ 50% winning rate
vs.
b) 1:1 RR @ 70% winning rate

I can't say which is easier to achieve like you said many factors. But I would rather be profitable with the lower winning %. Gives you more room to absorb outlier type draw downs. I think is bad idea to trade a strategy that needs those high percentages to make money.

"The day I became a winning trader was the day it became boring. Daily losses no longer bother me and daily wins no longer excited me. Took years of pain and busting a few accounts before finally got my mind right. I survived the darkness within and now just chillax and let my black box do the work."
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users say Thank You to liquidcci for this post:
 
  #30 (permalink)
Elite Member
Berlin, Europe
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: NinjaTrader, MultiCharts
Broker/Data: Interactive Brokers
Favorite Futures: Keyboard
 
Fat Tails's Avatar
 
Posts: 9,651 since Mar 2010
Thanks: 4,226 given, 25,600 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary

There Is a Clear Answer to That Question



Anagami View Post
Important Question: Which is easier to achieve? Which one should the trader strive for?

1) 1:2 RR @ 40% winning rate
vs.
2) 1:1 RR @ 60% winning rate

Of course, the answer depends on many factors including the 3 Ms (mind, method, and money).

The expectancy of the two alternatives is identical, the answer lies elsewhere. You will find it in the thread on the risk of ruin. To show this, we need to make some assumptions on the way we trade and on risk tolerance.

Assumptions:

-> I start with an account size of 100.000 USD
-> My target account is 400.000 USD
-> I will definitely stop trading after a drawdown of 50% (ruin)
-> My tolerared risk level for that drawdown is 1%
-> I am following a fixed-fractional approach for position sizing, that is I will increase my position size if my account gorws or decrease it after a loss
-> I use a model for YM, which includes slippage and commission

The results are shown below:

(1) The trend following model with the higher R-multiple and the lower win rate requires 450 trades to reach the target.

(2) The model with the lower R-multiple requires only 218 trades to achieve the same target.

The reason here is that the second model produces far lower drawdowns. Although both systems have the same expectancy, the second model has a higher Optimal F - in the example below 12.09% compared to 5.76% for the first model. This means that for equal drawdown risk the second model trades twice as many contracts and it comes out the clear winner.

@Anagami: Your analysis was right, the second model beats the first. You have just given an excellent example for the application of a Monte Carlo analysis. You can also use Monte-Carlo Analysis for fixed fractional betting, the difference between the two systems will even be more impressive.

@liquidcci: You got it wrong, the second model is better because it produces lower drawdowns and therefore allows for higher leverage. But I agree that the result is counter-intuitive.

Why 7% is the Difference between Failure and Success in Trading-risk-adjusted-optimal-f-model-comparison.pdf

Reply With Quote

Reply



futures io > > > Why 7% is the Difference between Failure and Success in Trading

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



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

Linda Bradford Raschke: Reading The Tape

Elite only

Adam Grimes: TBA

Elite only

NinjaTrader: TBA

January

Ran Aroussi: TBA

Elite only
     

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Success and Opportunities wh Psychology and Money Management 9 February 16th, 2016 06:18 PM
Bizman70 The Journey to success of Trading Live bizman70 Elite Trading Journals 88 September 15th, 2014 10:22 AM
Is there a big difference between trading long and trading short ? kittyan Traders Hideout 16 July 30th, 2010 07:19 AM
Key To Success George Psychology and Money Management 1 December 27th, 2009 01:12 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:44 AM.

Copyright © 2017 by futures io, s.a., Av Ricardo J. Alfaro, Century Tower, Panama, +507 833-9432, info@futures.io
All information is for educational use only and is not investment advice.
There is a substantial risk of loss in trading commodity futures, stocks, options and foreign exchange products. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
no new posts
Page generated 2017-12-12 in 0.18 seconds with 20 queries on phoenix via your IP 54.90.207.75