The thread discussion got me more interested in analysis. Found a great resource for Free Stats Software.
As the market gives me plenty of time between my setups, this is something I plan to get more into. I spent my time in the stats class in university chatting up the pretty honey next to me... but I'm back, it's an interesting field.
"...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
The following 4 users say Thank You to Anagami for this post:
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.
The following user says Thank You to Big Mike for this post:
Here's a curve ball. What about blending strategies sequentially to adjust overall potential?
For example, trade a 1:1 60% accuracy system to grind out a weekly (or daily, or monthly or whatever) target and then switch to a much a higher risk:reward system with a trailing stop on the weekly gains to limit downside exposure.
This is a type of 'barbell' approach where you can (in theory) get exposure to asymetrical payoffs.
The following user says Thank You to mokodo for this post:
I am not seeing any advantage of following this path. I would continue to trade the system with the R-Multiple of 1 and the win rate of 60%.
The only reason to trade two different systems in parallel (not sequentially!) would be a negative correlation of their returns. In that case drawdowns should be reduced allowing for a higher leverage.
The only problem with this approach is that the negative correlation often turns positive in a flight-to-safety scenario, and the higher leverage does not make things better either. See the demise of Long Term Capital Management. I think that they traded non-correlated or weakly correlated strategies, which turned out to be positively correlated when the flight-to-safety event (Russia defaulting on bonds) occurred.
The following user says Thank You to Fat Tails for this post:
I guess my 'angle' on this is not purely maths based, but practical in how I can use it to trade better and that in my case incorporates my psychology. I do employ such a 'barbell' approach which panders to my split trading personality. Very safe most the time and then - after a line in the sand is crossed - very risky.
I think Paul Tudor Jones has said that after you have grinded out a 30 or 40% year you have earned the right to go for it and perhaps book a 100%+ year. From a psychological perspective this makes sense (or at least it does to me), as you will probably have needed to trade well to get to that level in the first place and will be well tunded in when you drop the hammer and increase risk and/or the targets.
So not to divert the OP's intention of the thread, I'll bow out.
The following 2 users say Thank You to mokodo for this post:
I understand your position from a psychological point of view. George Soros called this going for the jugular .... What they probably meant is that once your have been profitable, it makes sense to increase size or to include trading strategies that may expose you to larger draw downs.
I do not think that this means necessarily switching to a different type of trade. You might simply build your position by pyramiding, once you have gained confidence, because the market has validated your strategy.
The following 3 users say Thank You to Fat Tails for this post:
Trading short-term allows you to place more bets. Provided your strategy comes with an intrinsic edge (let's denote this with some fixed value called the expected mean of returns), Bernoulli's theorem states that the larger the number of bets, the closer the sample mean of returns approaches the expected mean. As such, you should experience a smaller deviation of the sample mean from the expected value for every fixed unit interval of time while your strategy is run. In more concrete wording, the more the number of bets, the smaller the deviation of your realized daily returns from the expected mean of daily returns that you should experience, and hence higher Sharpe ratio. It can be estimated that the maximum compounded growth rate attainable with your strategy varies with the square of your Sharpe ratio, an order of magnitude faster than losses from transaction costs. By this reasoning, quite the contrary, there is actually an absolute advantage in shorter time frames.
The following 2 users say Thank You to artemiso for this post: