Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
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 for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
this one is holding up nicely.. i would wait for the next importer to be released and tested before we update the readme because as of the last few version of the journal and the new importer a bunch of things have been phased out and replaced by automation.. yay automation!
dont believe anything you hear and only half of what you see
when I opened ver 21 I had run-time err . . . when i selected debug lots of screens popped up . . . I am using Office 2010 so don't know if that has anything to do with it or not ?
FYI, I didn't know the read-me file existed because every time I opened the work-space the left tab was always the trading plan tab and I didn't think to try scrolling to the left ?
On the overview page Exit 2 . . . this is still showing 6 winners and 1 looser . . . I only had a total of six trades with an Exit 2 . . . I traded a total of 13 contracts on 7 trades . . . there were seven contracts at Exit 1 and six contracts at Exit 2 . . . of the six contracts at Exit 2, one was a break even trade . . . so under Exit 2 the values should be 5 winners at 83% and 1 looser at 17% . . . however please see my thinking below regarding counting a break-even trade as a looser. . .
If it is easily feasible to have "win" , "loose" and "draw" options in the calculations I would appreciate that feature as I do not consider a break-even trade to be a looser nor a winner . . . I know I have to pay commissions and there is a financial cost there . . . but I consider that a cost of doing business and not a flaw in my trading strategy . . . if I were a trader who executed a lot of trades, a b/e trade once in a while would not impact my win/loss ratio very much . . . however I strive to have a few trades with a very high probability of success . . . thus my b/e trades would skew my results to the negative side. My one break-even trade above was the second contract of the trade . . . I had already made 3 ticks on the first contract and broke even on the second contract . . . I consider that a winning trade on the two contract trade . . . I dont want to make this too complicated, however if there could be an option to have a "draw" option for b/e trades I would appreciate it, if it is too complicated then I will just interpolate it in my head . . .
All of the other questions I had in my previous post seem to have been fixed . . .
I will send along my spread sheet to you thru a PM . . . .
Thanks again for all of your hard work, I see a "final" at the end of the short tunnel ahead . . .
First about the runtime error: when you select debug the vba editor opens, so it is normal that a lot of windows appear. What would really help is a screenshot of the error message and an other screenshot after you clicked debug, would help big time to chase that bug!
About the exit 2 calculations: it calculates correct, as it also draws the other trades into the calculation. The reason for that is as follows: imagine a strategy with two targets and one stop. If the stop gets hit, it is filed as exit 1 for faster entry of trades. If both targets get filled exit 1 and 2 are populated. With this system exit2 would only produce winners ( this is a bit oversimplified, but I think it should get my point across).
Adding an option for scratch trades would unfortunately require rebuilding most of the journal.....so I am sorry, but I won't do that.
I also see it that in real life it is seldomly the case that a trade is a net zero trade ( because commission is always part of the game) so either it is a winner or a looser. As you mentioned cost of doing business, I would argue that loosing trades are also cost of business as no trader or bot has a 100% win rate! So a loosing trades do by no means automatically mean that there is a flaw in your trading. They are just part of the game. So it doesn't really make a difference whether you file scratch trades as winners or loosers, as it wouldn't change the approach itself, neither would it change for example your expectancy and some other stats.
Most will work, but the calculations involving time derived from these dates would obviously not work. The ones I could think of now would be return/day and year on overview as they are calculated using the elapsed timespan of 1st to last journal entry.
While I understand your statement "With this system exit2 would only produce winners" . . . please see the results of my fictional journal in the attached screen shots . . .
1. There are a total of ten trades
2. Five contracts for each trade
3. Nine trades have one target of 3 tics
4. The tenth trade has 3 targets as follows: 3 contracts at 3 tics, 1 contract at 8 tics, and 1 contract at break even . . .
Please observe my calculations under Result Exit 1, 2 & 3 on the Journal vs the Overview calculations . . . please note the calculation of "Average per Contract" . . . do you think this is a worthwhile addition for the over view tab ?
I think my calculations better reflect what really happened vs the overview calculations . . . what do you think ?
The problem of a stop getting hit could be solved by the manner in which data is entered . . . if it is a single target it would be entered in Exit 1, if it was a two target trade and stop is hit enter in Exit 1 & 2, three target etc . . . I am not a big fan of multiple data entry, but if it gives me a clearer picture of what happened I am willing to do that . . .
Regarding scratch trades, I fully understand your not wanting to, nor needing to, rebuild the journal . . . as to how we philosophically view scratch trades, I respectfully agree to disagree . . .
I disagree, I'm afraid. I think the only two realistic possibilities are either the one you explained below, or the one I used in the journal. All I can say is that the one in the journal suits me well, that's why I chose it. I admit freely that the development of this journal was/is also undertaken by me to have a journal that suits my needs...
I agree with you except for the last sentence(in this specific case) but I clearly see where you are coming from...I might have an idea how the golden middle will look like....
Under the premises that we are talking about a rather philosophical issue, I agree to agree to the above statement...
Minor improvements: Expectancy on overview also shows ticks now (for exit1-3 and method these are estimated, for all trades and instrument it is exact.
dont believe anything you hear and only half of what you see 
