TraderValue. Assess the competence of a trader in a single data. - futures io
futures io



TraderValue. Assess the competence of a trader in a single data.


Discussion in Psychology and Money Management

Updated
      Top Posters
    1. looks_one Wikmar with 16 posts (20 thanks)
    2. looks_two forker with 5 posts (2 thanks)
    3. looks_3 Sandpaddict with 3 posts (3 thanks)
    4. looks_4 Quick Summary with 1 posts (0 thanks)
    1. trending_up 3,564 views
    2. thumb_up 25 thanks given
    3. group 5 followers
    1. forum 24 posts
    2. attach_file 8 attachments




Welcome to futures io: the largest futures trading community on the planet, with well over 125,000 members
  • Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
  • Quality education from leading professional traders
  • We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
  • We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
  • We are here to help, just let us know what you need
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

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

 
Search this Thread
 

TraderValue. Assess the competence of a trader in a single data.

(login for full post details)
  #1 (permalink)
 Wikmar 
Madrid - Spain
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Own (more or less)
Trading: S&P500, FDAX, €/$, CL, etc.
 
Wikmar's Avatar
 
Posts: 142 since May 2014
Thanks: 1,619 given, 118 received

The title has the goal.

Probably, many times we need to answer or raise the question: Are you consistently profitable?. And if we want to express the profitability, we resort to some ratios and values about our systems (expectancy, geometric mean, etc), and / or our money success.

So, obviously it would be desirable to have just a single data to resume the trader success. Suppose the answer could be: 3.7. Better now?.

It also allows some other things, for example:

* To know the status and evolution of our trading.

* Compare traders effectively with others.

* Be able to rank traders (competitions).

* Measure the value of systems or operational, by types or by markets, separately and together, which in addition to a measure, enables operational decisions.


I think there is the need and the challenge.

I'm not going to invent or develop anything because I believe It's not necessary.

Why?. I could be wrong or outdated, but I find it basically solved with the System Quality Number® (SQN®) ratio. May be some improvements are needed, we'll see it, but I do not understand why it is not being used extensively for this purpose, at least among the communities of traders, although probably in fact it's being used for those purposes, but as a back-office resource.

So I open this thread to:

* Debate if there exists in fact this need or as a good goal.

* Debate the suitability of the SQN as calculation basis, and if confirmed as a good base, to finish developing an algorithm or formula/s for the purpose mentioned.

* Find alternatives if required.


To end this start post, I think is important to remember that SQN, SQN improved, or another better formula / algo with the goals explained, works around most effective way to evaluate trading systems or operationals, most effective way to optimize them, and a way to get the value and consistency of traders.

Home people force
https://wikmar.wordpress.com/
Started this thread Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to Wikmar for this post:

Can you help answer these questions
from other members on futures io?
Trempercom Tools including Decision Mgr focused on PROFI …
Trading Reviews and Vendors
looking for developer for pine scripts
Platforms and Indicators
Question: Indicator values on Price Ladder platforms (ot …
The Elite Circle
Using fxd files in FXCM trading station
Platforms and Indicators
Driving Crazy please help: MUltichart bar closing event …
MultiCharts
 
 
(login for full post details)
  #3 (permalink)
 Wikmar 
Madrid - Spain
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Own (more or less)
Trading: S&P500, FDAX, €/$, CL, etc.
 
Wikmar's Avatar
 
Posts: 142 since May 2014
Thanks: 1,619 given, 118 received


Searching a bit in the forum for this concept, let me bring here some of what has been explained and said:

Van Tharp's SQN (system quality number)


Van Tharp's Max Expectancy


Expectancy and SQN


Some issues about SQN from @Arpad and @Fat Tails ("Criticism" to SQN)


Is not appropriate to replace here the subjects of this threads, but let me remember an introduction facilitating not have to link so much.

System Quality Number® (SQN®) ratio was developed by Van K. Tharp some years ago, here it is the link for his SQN explanation:

System Quality Number® (SQN®)


SQN basically gives a measurement for the quality of a trades results set, therefore it can directly be applied to measure the quality of a trade system or an operational, as its name suggests.

But from here, there are many other applications, the first one; to provide a optimization criteria for algorithmic systems (if you consider it as a good or the best criteria to evaluate your results, obviously you would want to develop to optimize its outcome).

So, easily we can connect to measure the value of a trader, whose results will be the fruit of their systems or operational.

Shorting this briefing, for a statistically significant set (N > 30), we can have this simple and easy to use expression:



The square root of N normalizes the rest of the expression, that is the simplified Sharpe Ratio.

As you can find in many sites, here it is a brief mathematical analysis of the expression, trading oriented:

"The large the N, the more trading opportunities you have.

The large the average P&L, the better you are obviously.

The smaller the Std dev (P&L), the more regular are your results and the smaller are the drawdowns.

Note here that if you optimize for the largest SQN, you maximize in fact the product N*average P&L and you minimize the Std dev (P&L) and the drawdowns at the same time.

This is exactly what all good traders should be looking for their system.
".


So, basically "all is taken into account". Or not?. We'll see it extensively (I hope).

Home people force
https://wikmar.wordpress.com/
Started this thread Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to Wikmar for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #4 (permalink)
 Wikmar 
Madrid - Spain
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Own (more or less)
Trading: S&P500, FDAX, €/$, CL, etc.
 
Wikmar's Avatar
 
Posts: 142 since May 2014
Thanks: 1,619 given, 118 received

Just to start the issues and think / debate about it:


* Reference values.

Following Tharp:

SQN > 2 <=> consistent systems.
SQN > 3 <=> excellent systems.

There will be space to do deeper mathematical analysis, and get reference values.



* Lack of opportunity in the formula.

@forker about "opportunity" into the SQN




* Commissions and Slippages into the account?. Is it important?.

As a first approach, it can be adviced attached to the "TraderValue".




* Time involved in trades generation and in DrawDowns, into the account?. Is it important?. Normalize by t needed or better?.

@rickt about this



* Floating P/L into the account?. Is it important?.



* Leverage or money account exposition into the account? . Is it important?.



* How to compose the results of various trading systems / operationals?.

As a first approach, it can be merged all the results from different markets / trading systems / operationals, or evaluated separately and compiled in just one data weighing each value with the capital invested (the guarantees).



* Is SQN too based on a standard deviation?. Does the results adjust enough to a standard deviation, or we have better deviations?.

Home people force
https://wikmar.wordpress.com/
Started this thread Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to Wikmar for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #5 (permalink)
 Wikmar 
Madrid - Spain
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Own (more or less)
Trading: S&P500, FDAX, €/$, CL, etc.
 
Wikmar's Avatar
 
Posts: 142 since May 2014
Thanks: 1,619 given, 118 received

Just as an example, these results


has SQN = 5.03

Home people force
https://wikmar.wordpress.com/
Started this thread Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to Wikmar for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #6 (permalink)
 Wikmar 
Madrid - Spain
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Own (more or less)
Trading: S&P500, FDAX, €/$, CL, etc.
 
Wikmar's Avatar
 
Posts: 142 since May 2014
Thanks: 1,619 given, 118 received

* Lack of opportunity in the formula. and other issues in @forker's post

I guess I'm not understanding the really problem, because it seems simply that square root of N solves any lack of opportunity in the formula.


About the other SQN problems you point:


Quoting 
if you have a system with a SQN of .4, and you add say a huge winner to the mix, it would actually lower the SQN score. This is because it effects the deviation more than it does the average size of winners. I find this unacceptable. Is there a way to fix it?

Well, on my view, it's not so bad. Look at the following: System A with avg result = 2 and deviation = 1, and System B with avg result = 4 and deviation = 4. Simplified Sharpe ratio is already adequately distinguishing, which is better system (A).

But suppose System B with avg result = 8 and deviation = 4. In this case, simplified Sharpe ratio is not distinguishing between the two, but it seems clear that it is better system B, because its lower bound is better results than the upper bound of the results of A. So here I think SQN has a problem as it is simplified Sharpe ratio based on. Probably we can avoid it weighting SQN properly with something... (will see...).




Quoting 
Also, I like Modigliani's modification of Sharpe, which created an easier to understand metric. I feel something similar could be done with the SQN.

Let me bring here something from Wikipedia about advantages of Modigliani performance over the Sharpe Ratio:


Quoting 
The Sharpe Ratio is awkward to interpret when it is negative. Further, it is difficult to directly compare the Sharpe Ratios of several investments. For example, what does it mean if one investment has a Sharpe Ratio of 0.50 and another has a Sharpe Ratio of −0.50? How much worse was the second portfolio than the first? These downsides apply to all risk-adjusted return measures that are ratios (e.g., Sortino ratio, Treynor ratio, Upside-potential ratio, etc.).

M2 has the enormous advantage that it is in units of percent return, which is instantly interpretable by virtually all investors. Thus, for example, it is easy to recognize the magnitude of the difference between two investment portfolios which have M2 values of 5.2% and of 5.8%. The difference is 0.6 percentage points of risk-adjusted returns per year, with the riskiness adjusted to that of the benchmark portfolio (whatever that might be, but usually the market).


@forker or anybody; what do you think if we substitute the simple average of the average result by geometric mean value?. Pro's and con's?.

Home people force
https://wikmar.wordpress.com/
Started this thread Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to Wikmar for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #7 (permalink)
forker
Boston MA
 
 
Posts: 43 since Nov 2010
Thanks: 22 given, 10 received


Wikmar View Post
* Commissions and Slippages into the account?. Is it important?.

Are you serious?

fastcar

Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #8 (permalink)
forker
Boston MA
 
 
Posts: 43 since Nov 2010
Thanks: 22 given, 10 received


Wikmar View Post
The title has the goal.

Probably, many times we need to answer or raise the question: Are you consistently profitable?. And if we want to express the profitability, we resort to some ratios and values about our systems (expectancy, geometric mean, etc), and / or our money success.

Is what profitable? The 'system' or the 'trader'?


Quoting 
So, obviously it would be desirable to have just a single data to resume the trader success. Suppose the answer could be: 3.7. Better now?.

Well, if the trader and his system were one in the same, perhaps this would be desirable. But they are not, therefore, it is not.


Quoting 
It also allows some other things, for example:

* To know the status and evolution of our trading.

* Compare traders effectively with others.

* Be able to rank traders (competitions).

* Measure the value of systems or operational, by types or by markets, separately and together, which in addition to a measure, enables operational decisions.


I think there is the need and the challenge.

What is 'our trading'? Do you mean our rules based trading system or the evolution of ourselves as traders? Do you wish to 'Compare systems to one another', or the traders running those systems? I really think you need to give this further thought, Wikmar. If you have not already, I would recommend reading Super Trader to discover just what a difference there is between a good system and a good trader. Once you understand that, you will see that separate metrics are required for each.

Reply With Quote
 
(login for full post details)
  #9 (permalink)
 Wikmar 
Madrid - Spain
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Own (more or less)
Trading: S&P500, FDAX, €/$, CL, etc.
 
Wikmar's Avatar
 
Posts: 142 since May 2014
Thanks: 1,619 given, 118 received


forker View Post
Are you serious?

fastcar


Absolutely serious!. what surprising?.

I was raising an issue as openly as possible, from the beginning and collecting what I saw about, in this forum and in other places. So, very few things must be discarded without a bit of thinking and at least, to have them listed.

I wonder from what approach you see my initiative because I can not understand your tone (with all my respect for you).

I saw issues like the opportunity as clear and without anything really to solve, but I humbly expose what I see, albeit briefly, trying to do something constructive.

Thank you, I hope I'll undertand better your approach.

Home people force
https://wikmar.wordpress.com/
Started this thread Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to Wikmar for this post:
 
(login for full post details)
  #10 (permalink)
 Wikmar 
Madrid - Spain
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Own (more or less)
Trading: S&P500, FDAX, €/$, CL, etc.
 
Wikmar's Avatar
 
Posts: 142 since May 2014
Thanks: 1,619 given, 118 received



forker View Post
Is what profitable? The 'system' or the 'trader'?

...

What is 'our trading'? Do you mean our rules based trading system or the evolution of ourselves as traders? Do you wish to 'Compare systems to one another', or the traders running those systems? I really think you need to give this further thought, Wikmar. If you have not already, I would recommend reading Super Trader to discover just what a difference there is between a good system and a good trader. Once you understand that, you will see that separate metrics are required for each.

Recognize that until now thought that "a trader measure" must pass measuring their operationals (systems, discretionals, etc). If they are quite different things, I'm very insterested to know about it.

Would you please refer me more detailed about "Super Trader"?. Is it a book (I suppose)?, a thread in this forum?.

Thank you.

Home people force
https://wikmar.wordpress.com/
Started this thread Reply With Quote


futures io Trading Community Psychology and Money Management > TraderValue. Assess the competence of a trader in a single data.


Last Updated on May 16, 2021


Upcoming Webinars and Events
 

NinjaTrader Indicator Challenge!

Ongoing

Your Trading Jekyll and Hyde w/Peter Davies @ Jigsaw Trading

Elite only
 

Our 12-year anniversary w/ $$,$$$ prizes (check soon)

June
     



Copyright © 2021 by futures io, s.a., Av Ricardo J. Alfaro, Century Tower, Panama, Ph: +507 833-9432 (Panama and Intl), +1 888-312-3001 (USA and Canada), 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