Why you should add to winners and never add to losers - Traders Hideout | futures io social day trading
futures io futures trading


Why you should add to winners and never add to losers
Updated: Views / Replies:5,148 / 34
Created: by SMCJB Attachments:19

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
 19  
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
 

Why you should add to winners and never add to losers

  #11 (permalink)
Market Wizard
Houston, TX
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: XTrader
Broker/Data: Advantage Futures
Favorite Futures: Energy
 
Posts: 2,122 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 1,747 given, 3,356 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary


i960 View Post
There's some parts of this analysis that while mathematically may indicate one thing, intuitively it doesn't totally add up for me.

Could you elaborate? I'm not sure whether your saying something about the analysis or about yourself.

Reply With Quote
 
  #12 (permalink)
Elite Member
SF Bay Area + CA/US
 
Futures Experience: None
Platform: Tradestation, Ninja
Favorite Futures: NQ ES & Equities
 
paps's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,512 since Oct 2011
Thanks: 1,972 given, 1,279 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary

Great post @SMCJB totally agree.

The opposite is only possible when only cash rich and a different mindset. I remember few points while a few years ago reading West of Wall St...the process was detailed how few pros avg down...but it calls for strict discipline and ability to take a loss if not working. Seen and done that...hence totally agree to your nugget.

Thnx
S

Reply With Quote
 
  #13 (permalink)
Elite Member
San Francisco, CA
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: SC, eSignal
Broker/Data: IB
Favorite Futures: Spreads
 
Posts: 46 since Jan 2015
Thanks: 44 given, 38 received



SMCJB View Post
Could you elaborate? I'm not sure whether your saying something about the analysis or about yourself.

I'm saying that while the analysis and math is good, there may be some practical/pragmatic/empirical points that don't necessarily match. For instance, the specific part about are stops being common or independent. After rereading your scenarios it does appear you are talking about common stops in the scale in/average down case and all in cases. However, are you talking about the same scenario with scaling in / averaging up (adding to winners)? Meaning the stops used for all positions are the same, hence in the adverse case of adding to the position and having it go against you the loss is the original position + the entire reversal portion of the move for the added size. If the analysis is assuming that the added to position has it's own stop then that's a different thing entirely.

In addition to all of this, this analysis appears as if p is static throughout the trade and set on entry. In reality, people averaging down/up/whatever are doing it at discrete areas where p is very likely to differ at different points throughout the trade. Would you agree that p at a support or resistance level probably differs compared to the middle of a range?

In fact, one might make the argument that just because price is going up doesn't mean it's going to continue going up - and that the risk of it going down grows as it keeps going up.

By no means would I argue for a martingale/losers average losers approach, I'm simply saying that traders may "blend" entries via scaling in because it's basically impossible to know the perfect entry point and as a side-effect of this they reduce immediate drawdown in the losing case. Most people using these techniques are doing them in an intelligent manner at specific areas of the trade and are actually trying to take advantage of the trade going against them. In many cases where said adverse move on entry doesn't happen the same traders will also scale in by averaging up.

Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to i960 for this post:
 
  #14 (permalink)
Elite Member
Manchester, NH
 
Futures Experience: Beginner
Platform: thinkorswim
Broker/Data: TD Ameritrade
Favorite Futures: Stocks
 
Posts: 902 since Jul 2012
Thanks: 603 given, 1,785 received


i960 View Post
There's some parts of this analysis that while mathematically may indicate one thing, intuitively it doesn't totally add up for me.

For your benefit, what doesn't add up is that the analysis conflates joint and conditional probabilities. The 3 scenarios have exactly the same expected payoff.

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


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


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


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


There's two simple ways to understand the mathematical intuition above:

1. Gambler's fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Explaining_why_the_probability_is_1.2F2_for_a_fair_coin)

2. Is it better to continue buying lottery tickets given that you have won a lottery?

Hope this helps.

Reply With Quote
The following 4 users say Thank You to artemiso for this post:
 
  #15 (permalink)
Market Wizard
Houston, TX
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: XTrader
Broker/Data: Advantage Futures
Favorite Futures: Energy
 
Posts: 2,122 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 1,747 given, 3,356 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary


artemiso View Post
For your benefit, what doesn't add up is that the analysis conflates joint and conditional probabilities.

With the greatest respect (and be assured i have a lot of respect for you) but I'm not sure I agree.

Firstly your probability diagram notation is a little confusing to me as the sum of your probabilities at time T+2 appears to be 3

To reiterate my base assumption

Quoting 
Ron Schoenberg and Al Corwin recently did some interesting research on the trading technique of "averaging-in". For e.g.: Let's say you have $4 to invest. If a future's price recently drops to $2, though you expect it to eventually revert to $3. Should you
A) buy 1 contract at $2, and wait for the price to possibly drop to $1 and then buy 2 more contracts (i.e. averaging-in); or...

and maybe most importantly

Quoting 
In a moment of boredom I decided to expand Chanís analysis to a binomial tree where we have a probability p of going down $1, but also a probability (1-p) of going up $1.

Hence p can range from 1 to 0 and when p = 1, there is a 100% chance we go down, but a 0% chance that we go up, and when p = 0, there is a 0% chance we go down, but a 100% chance that we go up.

Now take your example A.

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


When p = 1 (ie 100% we go down), both methodologies yield -4, which makes sense.
- (4-8) vs (-4-2+2)

When p = 0.5 (ie 50/50, both methodologies yield 0, which also makes sense.
- (4-4) vs (-1-1+2)

(note that between 1 and 0.5 they actually yield different results).

Now consider the case when p = 0. ie the market is 100% guaranteed to go up.
Your methodology yields 4 (4-0) but my methodology yields 2 (0+0+2).
If the market is 100% guaranteed to go straight up, there's never a chance to scale in and expected profit is 2 surely?

I understand that Bayes Theorem breaks down when p=0 or p=1 but since I don't concede that this is conditional probability I don't concede that Bayes Theorem applies here.



I understand conditional probability/the Monty Hall Problem etc etc.
I understand that if we flip a coin and it is a tail, that the probability that we then flip a second coin and it is a head is 0.5 not 0.25.
BUT that's not what we are saying here, we are saying whats the probability flipping two coins and getting a tail AND THEN a head in that specific order.

If you want to argue that the probability of flipping two coins and getting a tail and then a head in that specific order is 0.5 and not 0.25 then we can arrange to meet somewhere and I will bring a very large suitcase of cash with me.

In my analysis I handled the path dependency of this problem by treating a final outcome of 2 not as one outcome with a probability of 2*p*(1-p) but as two different scenario's, each with probability p*(1-p) that have different payouts. Hence maintaining the probability of the market ending at 2 to still be 2*p*(1-p)

I believe the key here is that we are not making the decision at time T+1 based upon what happened already, we are making that decision at T=0 BEFORE we know what happens. I do agree that if they were independent decisions taken at different times it would be different. That is not the case though, the decision to scale in was made before we enter the first trade. If it wasn't we would have bought more than we did.


artemiso View Post
2. Is it better to continue buying lottery tickets given that you have won a lottery?

That obviously depends upon the odds of winning.
If the probablity of winning again is 100% (ie p=0) then definitely yes.
As it is both are methodologies support continuing to buy lottery tickets when (p<0.5) as there is a positive expectancy.

Reply With Quote
 
  #16 (permalink)
Elite Member
Manchester, NH
 
Futures Experience: Beginner
Platform: thinkorswim
Broker/Data: TD Ameritrade
Favorite Futures: Stocks
 
Posts: 902 since Jul 2012
Thanks: 603 given, 1,785 received


Quoting 
Firstly your probability diagram notation is a little confusing to me as the sum of your probabilities at time T+2 appears to be 3

If you sum the joint probabilities at time T+2, you have (1-p)^2 + p(1-p) + p(1-p) + p^2 = 1.


SMCJB View Post
I understand that Bayes Theorem breaks down when p=0 or p=1 but since I don't concede that this is conditional probability I don't concede that Bayes Theorem applies here.

I hope you are aware that your method assumes that Bayes's theorem applies as well. The edges of a binomial tree represent conditional probabilities.

Here's an example on a peer-reviewed journal article using the binomial tree model: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~msubrahm/papers/HSS.pdf (see page 1132 and 1140 in the journal i.e. page 9 and 17 on the document) which should point out the conditional probabilities to you.


Quoting 
Now consider the case when p = 0. ie the market is 100% guaranteed to go up.
Your methodology yields 4 (4-0) but my methodology yields 2 (0+0+2).

The transition probabilities are time-variant in this case, so you should really be distinguishing between p and p' and saying that p'=0 and P(W1)=1-p'=1.

Here, I quickly scribbled down what the probability tree will look like with initial P(W1) = 1 i.e. 100% guaranteed to go up at initial time step, then { p | p=/=0 and p=/=1 } of going down in the next time step:

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


In the second time step, as p -> 0, your expected payoff approaches +2.

Reply With Quote
 
  #17 (permalink)
Market Wizard
Houston, TX
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: XTrader
Broker/Data: Advantage Futures
Favorite Futures: Energy
 
Posts: 2,122 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 1,747 given, 3,356 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary


artemiso View Post
If you sum the joint probabilities at time T+2, you have (1-p)^2 + p(1-p) + p(1-p) + p^2 = 1.

Agree completely.
As previously stated I think that properly separating the Up/Down and Down/Up to each have probability p(1-p) rather than saying the probability of the end node of 2 is 2p(1-p) address's the conditionality of the scale.

Specifically in case A our expected profit is
@4 ~ (4-2) * (1-p)^2
@2A ~ 0 * p(1-p)
@2B ~ 2*(2-1) * p(1-p)
@ 0 ~ [(0-2)+2*(0-1)] * p^2
which added together yields
-4p^2 -2p +2


artemiso View Post
I hope you are aware that your method assumes that Bayes's theorem applies as well. The edges of a binomial tree represent conditional probabilities.

Here's an example on a peer-reviewed journal article using the binomial tree model: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~msubrahm/papers/HSS.pdf (see page 1132 and 1140 in the journal i.e. page 9 and 17 on the document) which should point out the conditional probabilities to you.

I'm 20+ years removed from my schooling and text books. I view myself as a trader with a very strong math background as opposed to a quant. As such I must concede that Theorem's & Lemma's etc are things in my past, and no longer second nature to me, as such I am unable to effectively debate with you in this manner. I will say though that the paper you reference appears to be addressing multivariate model as opposed to the univariate we are discussing.

SMCJB View Post
Your methodology yields 4 (4-0) but my methodology yields 2 (0+0+2).
If the market is 100% guaranteed to go straight up, there's never a chance to scale in and expected profit is 2 surely?


artemiso View Post
In the second time step, as p -> 0, your expected payoff approaches +2.

So what am I missing? You seem to be supporting my case?

Reply With Quote
 
  #18 (permalink)
Elite Member
Manchester, NH
 
Futures Experience: Beginner
Platform: thinkorswim
Broker/Data: TD Ameritrade
Favorite Futures: Stocks
 
Posts: 902 since Jul 2012
Thanks: 603 given, 1,785 received


SMCJB View Post
So what am I missing? You seem to be supporting my case?

I'm not supporting your case.

I'm saying 3 things:

1. You're incorrect to say that Baye's theorem doesn't apply. Bayes's theorem does apply and you're even using it in your (misapplied) binomial tree. When you compute the joint probability in your binomial tree, e.g. p*p, p(1-p), (1-p)^2, why are these the product of 2 terms? Are you aware that 1 in each of these 2 terms is a conditional probability?

2. My model handles any p'=0 and p'=1 cases correctly. All that the p=0 and p=1 cases are saying is that there exist no outedges from that node in the probability tree. I assumed that this is not the case in my first post when I derived the expected payoffs, which is why you cannot plug in p=0 or p=1 into it. In my second post, I showed you that the result is still accurate if you introduce nodes with 1 outedge, e.g. initial step probability p'=0 and second step probability 0<p<1.

3. This is the easiest part to see where you went wrong:


Quoting 
Case iii) the market drops at T+1, and then rallies back to $2 at T+2. In that case our initial contract purchased at $2 is breakeven, but when prices dropped to $1 at T+1 we added two more contracts. These two contracts now have a total profit of $2. Hence the expected payout of case iii) is 2*p*(1-p).

Finally in case iv) the prices drops at T+1 and T+2 and ends at $0. In this case we lose $2 on our initial one contract purchase and lose an additional $2 on our two extra purchases at $1. Hence we have a total loss of $4 and an expected payout of -4*p*p

P(W1|W2) denotes the probability of the "if W1 then W2" event. This is called a conditional probability.

P(W1 and W2) denotes the probability of the "W1 AND W2" event. This is called a joint probability.

The 'If market drops at T+1 then market drops at T+2' event has probability p.

The 'Market drops at T+1 AND market drops at T+2' event has probability p^2.

Where you're erroneously getting the quadratic terms in your calculation is that you're multiplying the (W1|W2) outcome value with the probability of the (W1 AND W2) event, which is meaningless.

Another way to look at this: Suppose I took a 6 chamber revolver with 1 bullet and played 100 rounds of Russian roulette unharmed. Is it better to use this revolver (add to my 'winners') than a completely identical 6 chamber revolver with initially2 bullets that has fired off once (now has 1 bullet)?

Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to artemiso for this post:
 
  #19 (permalink)
Elite Member
Manchester, NH
 
Futures Experience: Beginner
Platform: thinkorswim
Broker/Data: TD Ameritrade
Favorite Futures: Stocks
 
Posts: 902 since Jul 2012
Thanks: 603 given, 1,785 received


SMCJB View Post
With the greatest respect (and be assured i have a lot of respect for you) but I'm not sure I agree.

Well, that's why I deleted my post in page 1. I don't mean to create any ill will between us. I figured you'd see my deleted post in your email subscription and correct the error yourself, or perhaps someone else would do it.

Reply With Quote
 
  #20 (permalink)
Elite Member
Manchester, NH
 
Futures Experience: Beginner
Platform: thinkorswim
Broker/Data: TD Ameritrade
Favorite Futures: Stocks
 
Posts: 902 since Jul 2012
Thanks: 603 given, 1,785 received



Quoting 
there exist no outedges from that node in the probability tree

I meant there exists only one outedge from that node in the probability tree...

Reply With Quote

Reply



futures io > > > Why you should add to winners and never add to losers

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



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

Jigsaw Trading: TBA

Elite only

FuturesTrader71: TBA

Elite only

NinjaTrader: TBA

Jan 18

RandBots: TBA

Jan 23

GFF Brokers & CME Group: Futures & Bitcoin

Elite only

Adam Grimes: TBA

Elite only

Ran Aroussi: TBA

Elite only
     

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cant add contacts or friends when trying to add them PLEASE HELP budfox Feedback and Announcements 0 October 21st, 2014 03:41 PM
Winners and Losers kerrmac Psychology and Money Management 9 August 16th, 2012 09:55 PM
The Winners and Losers in Obama's Corporate Tax Plan Quick Summary News and Current Events 0 February 22nd, 2012 08:10 PM
Winners and losers from the financial crisis kbit News and Current Events 0 November 1st, 2011 03:39 PM
Winners & Losers of 2010 Poll: You Voted, and Results Are In Quick Summary News and Current Events 0 December 8th, 2010 09:20 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:19 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 2017-12-15 in 0.09 seconds with 19 queries on phoenix via your IP 54.221.76.68