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:5,156 / 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

  #21 (permalink)
Market Wizard
Houston, TX
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: XTrader
Broker/Data: Advantage Futures
Favorite Futures: Energy
 
Posts: 2,123 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 1,749 given, 3,358 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary


artemiso View Post
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.

Just to confirm there is no ill will on my side, hopefully none on yours either.

Unfortunately this is the Ďthread subscription notificationí email that I got.
Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).


And when I went to the actual post to see what the attachments were I got.
Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).


You actually made two posts that morning, but the way notifications work I didnít get a notification for the second post, and hence have no idea at all what it said.

I know you delete a lot of your posts for privacy reasons, something I try to honor by not quoting your entire post, but since I didnít & donít think I was wrong, my assumption was Ė ready for a laugh Ė that you had deleted your post because you realized you had made an error. I was obviously very wrong on that!

Regarding your last line, ďand correct the error yourself, or perhaps someone else would do itĒ I must say that with all the 1000s of views this post/thread has received and the >50 likeís, that if the analysis is off as you say, Iím surprised somebody else hasnít pointed it out. Also surprised that nobody has weighed in on this follow up discussion (other than i960.)

Returning to the debate at hand, I believe I may be losing the war of words, but donít believe Iím necessarily losing the war of facts. As I previously stated I have a lot of respect for you, and am under the impression that your knowledge of math and our areaís of finance, is superior to mine. This is all second nature to you, and you can talk very authoritatively and eloquently on the subject. As previously stated. Iím 20+ years away from my degree in math, and itís no longer all second nature to me. I even had to check that Bayes Theorem was what I thought it was. While I believe the underlying message and intent of my replies to you are correct I acknowledge that I have miss-worded and ambiguously worded certain statements.

Unfortunately saying all of that I still disagree with you that the payout for all 3 scenarioís is (4-8p). Let me try and illustrate why once again, and hopefully you can explain to me in laymanís terms why I am wrong.

To reiterate the situation, at time T the current price is $2, at T+1 it can move up to $3 or down to $1, and at time T+2 it can move up/or down $1, yielding prices of $0, $2 or $4. At each time step the probability of a $1 drop is p and the probability of a $1 rise is (1-p).

In scenario C we do nothing at time T but if the price drops to $1 at time T+1 we will buy 4 contracts at $1. Note that this decision is being made at time T and not at T+1. We canít/wonít change our mind.

It is my opinion that at time T, the expected payout of Scenario C is (4p-8p^2)

I believe it is your opinion that at time T the expected payout of Scenario C is (4-8p). (I believe that this is in fact represents the expected payout at Time T+1 given that we are trading $1 and not the expected payout at time T.)

The chart below illustrates the trajectory of these two payoffs at points (0, 0.01, 0.1, 0.2 Ö 0.9, 0.99, 1.0)
Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).




As p -> 1, ie the market is guaranteed to go down, both our payouts -> -4, which makes sense as we are long 4 contracts at $2 and the market is almost guaranteed to drop to $1.

As p -> 0, ie the market is guaranteed to go up, my payout -> 0. This makes sense to me as I have no position on
and the market has gone up before I can establish a position.

As p -> 0, your payout -> 4. How can this be possible if you donít have a position on?

Reply With Quote
 
  #22 (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 
I must say that with all the 1000s of views this post/thread has received and the >50 like’s, that if the analysis is off as you say, I’m surprised somebody else hasn’t pointed it out. Also surprised that nobody has weighed in on this follow up discussion (other than i960.)

I can just as easily find you a post with 50 likes on "R:R multiples". Which is why there is good money to be picked off from these guys.


Quoting 
In scenario C we do nothing at time T but if the price drops to $1 at time T+1 we will buy 4 contracts at $1. Note that this decision is being made at time T and not at T+1. We can’t/won’t change our mind.

It's not about changing your mind. You said it yourself: IF then price drops to $1, THEN we will buy. You're looking at P(we buy | price drops to $1), not P(price drops to $1 AND we buy).

Suppose if the sun doesn't rise at time T+1, I will let you play this game at time T+2: I pay you $6M if you roll a six on a fair dice and $0 otherwise. I let you decide at time T your preplanned action at time T+2 if the sun doesn't rise.

P( sun doesn't rise tomorrow) is approximately zero, so according to you, the expectancy of this is P( sun doesn't rise tomorrow AND you roll a six )*$6M -> $0. This is consistent with your suggestion not to 'add to losers', i.e. at time T, you would not to play this game at T+1.

However, the expectancy of this 'adding to your losers' is actually simply P( you roll a six | sun doesn't rise tomorrow)*$6M = 1/6*$6M = $1M. At time T, I can already preplan that if the sun does not rise at T+1, I will play this game at T+2.

Reply With Quote
 
  #23 (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
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.

By the way, this is another place where your methodology is incorrect. I gave the example of lotteries deliberately because this is a binomial experiment.

Buying n tickets upfront (all-in at initial time step) gives you odds of n/N. Suppose probability of success p such that p+q=1. The odds of success from buying over n steps are:

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


which is worse than all-in upfront.

Reply With Quote
 
  #24 (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


artemiso View Post
By the way, this is another place where your methodology is incorrect. I gave the example of lotteries deliberately because this is a binomial experiment.

Buying n tickets upfront (all-in at initial time step) gives you odds of n/N. Suppose probability of success p such that p+q=1. The odds of success from buying over n steps are:

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


which is worse than all-in upfront.

P.S.: Big N is the number of combinations in the lottery.

Reply With Quote
 
  #25 (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
As p -> 0, ie the market is guaranteed to go up, my payout -> 0. This makes sense to me as I have no position on
and the market has gone up before I can establish a position.

As p -> 0, your payout -> 4. How can this be possible if you don’t have a position on?

Exactly, this is a conditional probability!

Assume the current market price is $100M, and market is practically guaranteed to go up from $1 if it ever gets there, i.e. p ->0.

You can replace your strategy with 'If market price drops from $100M to $1 and Taylor Swift marries me, then I will buy 4 futures contracts @ $1.' The expected payoff of your strategy is still $4 because your strategy decides what to do now *if* Taylor Swift marries you in the future.

An assessment of how good this strategy is is independent of how likely Taylor Swift is going to become your wife.

That's why all 3 scenarios have equal expected payoff.

Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to artemiso for this post:
 
  #26 (permalink)
Market Wizard
Houston, TX
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: XTrader
Broker/Data: Advantage Futures
Favorite Futures: Energy
 
Posts: 2,123 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 1,749 given, 3,358 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary

While you've given some colorful analogies, Gamblers Fallacy, Lottery Tickets, Sun Rising Tomorrow, Russian Roulette, and even marrying Taylor Swift you still have not explained how you can make money when you don't have a position on?

Re: the lottery discussion. You said

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

To which I replied...

SMCJB
That obviously depends upon the odds of winning.
If the probablity of winning again is 100% (ie p=0) then definitely yes.

Which I obviously still stand by. If you have a 100% chance of winning who wouldn't play.
But then you say..

artemiso View Post
By the way, this is another place where your methodology is incorrect. I gave the example of lotteries deliberately because this is a binomial experiment.

Buying n tickets upfront (all-in at initial time step) gives you odds of n/N. Suppose probability of success p such that p+q=1. The odds of success from buying over n steps are:

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


which is worse than all-in upfront.

What you originally asked (buy, win, continue buying), and what your now saying (buy, win, continue buying) vs (buying tickets upfront) are two different scenario's and the second is not the scenario I answered. Either way I believe my response to be correct to the original question. If you believe that you shouldn't buy a lottery ticket when the chances of winning are 100% I'd be curious to hear why. (Assuming of course that the ticket price isn't more than the prize!)

Maybe we're debating different things and don't realize it.

artemiso
Suppose if the sun doesn't rise at time T+1, I will let you play this game at time T+2: I pay you $6M if you roll a six on a fair dice and $0 otherwise. I let you decide at time T your preplanned action at time T+2 if the sun doesn't rise.

P( sun doesn't rise tomorrow) is approximately zero, so according to you, the expectancy of this is P( sun doesn't rise tomorrow AND you roll a six )*$6M -> $0. This is consistent with your suggestion not to 'add to losers', i.e. at time T, you would not to play this game at T+1.

However, the expectancy of this 'adding to your losers' is actually simply P( you roll a six | sun doesn't rise tomorrow)*$6M = 1/6*$6M = $1M. At time T, I can already preplan that if the sun does not rise at T+1, I will play this game at T+2.

I agree that I am saying P( sun doesn't rise tomorrow AND you roll a six )*$6M -> $0.

I also agree that P( you roll a six | sun doesn't rise tomorrow)*$6M = 1/6*$6M = $1M ~ BUT that's NOT what I'm saying. I am saying P( sun doesn't rise tomorrow AND you roll a six )*$6M -> $0.

Note no emphasis added to the AND. That was your own wording.

In your example you say "Suppose if the sun doesn't rise". In my analysis we are evaluating scenarios A, B, and C "whether the sun does or doesn't rise" to use your expression and not "ONLY when it doesn't rise". I agree that the expectancy of adding to losers, at the time we add to them is what you say. That's not we're analyzing though.

Put another way, how about this. I offer you two opportunities, you pick one.

Opportunity One. "If the sun does rise tomorrow, I will let you play this game where I will pay you $6M if you roll a six on a fair dice and $0 otherwise.

Opportunity Two. "If the sun doesn't rise tomorrow, I will let you play this game where I will pay you $6M if you roll a six on a fair dice and $0 otherwise.

Are you really going to say that they have the same expected payout and your indiffierent to either oppurtunity?

Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
 
  #27 (permalink)
Every Day I'm a n00b
San Tan Valley, AZ/USA
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: NT7
Broker/Data: IB, Tallinex, & 10 others.
Favorite Futures: Futures
 
FABRICATORX's Avatar
 
Posts: 195 since Jun 2013
Thanks: 693 given, 160 received

Interesting - @SMCJB, you're implying that it's not necessarily a matter of statistical efficiency, but a pragmatic matter. Theoretical vs practical.

Aside from that, I've never had to think so hard reading a thread. Thanks to both of you guys

Reply With Quote
 
  #28 (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
Opportunity One. "If the sun does rise tomorrow, I will let you play this game where I will pay you $6M if you roll a six on a fair dice and $0 otherwise.

Opportunity Two. "If the sun doesn't rise tomorrow, I will let you play this game where I will pay you $6M if you roll a six on a fair dice and $0 otherwise.

Are you really going to say that they have the same expected payout and your indiffierent to either oppurtunity?

This is not analogous to scenarios A, B or C. Do you see why?

In Scenarios A, B or C, you are making an action after the realization (market data) at time T+1. I gave the correct analogy to this: I said that you can precompute ahead of time that if the sun doesn't rise at T+1 that it yields an expectation of +$1M to play the game. So when the sun does indeed not rise at time T+1, then you would play the game. Your action time is T+1 and your decision space is {bet on rowing a 6, don't bet on rowing a 6}.

In the two opportunities you are giving me, you are only allowing me to make an action at time T (before the realization at time T+1) predicated on me already fixed on playing the game. In this case, the expectation values that you should be comparing are P( sun rises AND row a six | play the game)*6M and P( sun doesn't rise AND row a six | play the game)*6M. Your action time is T and your decision space is {bet on sun rising, bet on sun not rising}.

Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to artemiso for this post:
 
  #29 (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

One of the other issues in this debate is that it seems the extremes of 0% and 100% are being used to prove or disprove a point. As I said earlier, p is not necessarily static throughout the decision process. Perhaps what I meant by that was that they're independent probabilities occurring at disparate moments in time. They appear linked, but aren't.

If we want to get practical/pragmatic and look past the 0%/100% p stuff, when we consider things like S/R, ranging >80% of the time, yadda yadda, then technically adding to losers should actually outperform adding to winners over the long-term in the majority ranging case. Obviously in the hard core trending situation this won't be the case. I know this, when I add to a position that's gone against me, I'm not adding because I'm trying to dig out of a hole quicker, I'm adding because I still believe in it and still expect it to reverse. The initial position could be considered a "get in the trade" at a reasonable (but perhaps not perfect) entry point.

It also was never answered in the original post if adding to winners used the same stop as the original position.

Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to i960 for this post:
 
  #30 (permalink)
Market Wizard
Houston, TX
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: XTrader
Broker/Data: Advantage Futures
Favorite Futures: Energy
 
Posts: 2,123 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 1,749 given, 3,358 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary



i960 View Post
One of the other issues in this debate is that it seems the extremes of 0% and 100% are being used to prove or disprove a point. As I said earlier, p is not necessarily static throughout the decision process. Perhaps what I meant by that was that they're independent probabilities occurring at disparate moments in time. They appear linked, but aren't.

While I agree that p = 0 or 1 are extremely unlikely cases, they are obviously (along with 0.5) the easiest cases to illustrate. Your also right that in real life "p is not necessarily static throughout the decision process" but if you can correctly identify auto correlation/serial correlation there are probably more efficient ways to take advantage of that, than by this. I was just trying to expand on Chan's analysis and illustrate why adding to losers is a bad idea.


i960 View Post
It also was never answered in the original post if adding to winners used the same stop as the original position.

I'm sorry but I thought it was obvious that this was just a simple 2 step analysis and that stops were not considered. Expanding the analysis and looking at stop rules, and how they effect the decision making would be an interesting exercise.

Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to SMCJB for this post:

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 08:04 PM.

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 0.08 seconds with 19 queries on phoenix via your IP 54.163.61.66