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:5,167 / 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 – 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 don’t 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

  #1 (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

Why you should add to winners and never add to losers

Why you should add to winners and never add to losers

I recently got an email from Kevin Davey of KJ Trading, aka @kevinkdog, regarding his latest blog post entitled “Peel Off Trading”. Kevin is a highly respected member of futures.io (formerly BMT) who has done several webinars, has his own “Ask me Anything Thread", has written a book “Building Winning Algorithmic Trading Systems, A Trader's Journey From Data Mining to Monte Carlo Simulation to Live Trading” and is also I believe the current coordinator of “The Battle of the Bots".

The basic concept of “Peel off Trading” is
In its simplest form, the trader starts out with 2 contracts, exits the first at a small profit (the “peel off”), and then holds the second as a “runner,” going for big profits. In some cases when the first contract is exited, the second contract is then modified to have a breakeven stop.
Like almost all of Kevin’s work it’s a very interesting piece based upon supporting analysis. Kevin actually back tests the exit rules upon three different strategies but the results are inclusive
Results of the out-of-sample analysis are mixed. The ES is the same, the GC strategy is better with the “peel off” method, and the JY strategy is better with the baseline (always trading 2 contracts).
While reading it I was actually reminded of a different blogpost “Does Averaging in Work?” by Ernie Chan. While I don’t believe Ernie posts here he has done several webinars. He has also written two books “Quantitative Trading: How to Build Your Own Algorithmic Trading Business” and “Algorithmic Trading: Winning Strategies and Their Rationale”.

While Kevin’s blog was looking at exit scenario’s, Ernie’s blog was looking at entry rules. It was also more theoretical in nature, but his conclusion was more decisive.
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
B) buy 2 contracts at $2 each; or
C) wait to possibly buy 4 contracts at $1 each?
Let's assume that the probability of the price dropping to $1 once you have reached $2 is p. It is easy to see that the average profits of the 3 options are the following:
A) p*(1*$1+2*$2) + (1-p)*(1*$1)=1+4p;
B) 2; and
C) p4*$2=8p.
Profit A is lower than C when p > 1/4, and profit A is lower than profit C when p > 1/4. Hence, whatever p is, either option B or C is more profitable than averaging in, and thus averaging-in can never be optimal.
As I started thinking about Chan’s analysis I didn’t like the way he considered the one situation “that the probability of the price dropping to $1 once you have reached $2 is p” and excluded other scenario’s. In a moment of boredom I decided to expand Chan’s 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 at time T+1 we have probability p of trading $1, and a probability (1-p) of trading $3. Then at time T+2 we have probability p*p of trading $0, a probability 2p(1-p) of trading $2 and a probability of (1-p)*(1-p) of trading $4.

For those of you were not aware this is what we would call a binomial tree which is used to derive the Binomial Distribution (Wikipedia, Wolfram Mathworld) and there are many option and derivative pricing models based upon binomial trees and even more based upon other type of trees.

If we consider as an example scenario A) where we buy 1 contract at $2, and wait for the price to possibly drop to $1 and then buy 2 more contracts.
In case i) where the market goes up at T+1, and T+2 to $4 we never buy the additional contracts, hence we buy a single contract at $2, that has a $2 profit. Since this has a probability of (1-p)*(1-p) the expected payout of case i) is 2*(1-p)*(1-p)

Case ii) the market goes up at T+1, and then down at T+2 to $2 we never buy the additional contracts, and we have no profit. Hence the expected payout of case ii) is 0.

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
Adding this all together our expected payout for scenario A is
2*(1-p)*(1-p) + 0 + 2*p*(1-p) - 4*p*p = -4p^2 -2p +2
It follows that the other expected payouts are B (-8p +4) and C (-8p^2 +4p)

If we plot these functions we can see that while A) and C) might outperform B) (well actually lose less) when p>0.5 (ie market is more likely to go down) but they underperform even more when p<0.5 and hence the expected returns of A) and C) are both negatively skewed in relation to B).
Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).


While this doesn’t completely agree with Chan’s analysis that’s it’s never better to scale in, it does support his analysis in that from a risk reward perspective it’s never better to scale down into a position.
I then added a fourth scenario D) where we Buy 1 at $2, and if prices go up we buy 2/3rds more at $3. I know fractions make it messy but it’s the only way to keep it an equal investment size.
The expected payout of D) is +1.33p^2 - 6p +2.67

This is the complete opposite of A) and C). It underperforms 2) when p>0.5 but outperforms by a greater margin when p<0.5, hence it has a positive expectancy skew!

This would imply that not only should you not “average down” but that adding to winning positions has a better risk reward.

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


While D has the best risk/reward it does have a lower reward than the base scenario B). Hence to achieve the same desired results, you can/should scale the positions appropriately. This is actually a great way to visualize what we are discussing as you can see below. You will see that while 3 of the 4 have similar positive profiles, scenario D has the least worse profile when the market goes against the position.

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


I then expanded the analysis significantly, going out to T+5, and including additional scale in scenarios. The conclusions were the same though. Averaging down has a worse risk reward profile than buying your entire position at entry, while adding to winners has a better risk reward profile.

Disclaimers/Notes/Flaws/Weaknesses:
A couple of the obvious flaws of this analysis are
- it uses a fixed price movement of $1 as opposed to a percentage move - while this is actually easy to fix for the purposes of this example it would add undue complication since +1-1=-1+2 but +1%-1%<>-1%+1%
- it assumes a binomial distribution when in reality a log normal distribution would be a better fit.
- Price (changes) in reality are not log normally distributed. As we all know tails are a lot lot fatter.
- Stops could potentially completely change the analysis.

Reply With Quote
 
  #2 (permalink)
Quick Summary
Quick Summary Post

Quick Summary is created and edited by users like you... Add FAQ's, Links and other Relevant Information by clicking the edit button in the lower right hand corner of this message.

 
  #3 (permalink)
Site Administrator
Manta, Ecuador
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Favorite Futures: E-mini ES S&P 500
 
Big Mike's Avatar
 
Posts: 46,240 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 29,353 given, 83,234 received


@SMCJB,

I just wanted to take a moment and say thank you, I have noticed all your helpful posts on the forum and I appreciate your contribution to our community.

Mike

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.

Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to Big Mike for this post:
 
  #4 (permalink)
Elite Member
Dallas, TX/USA
 
Futures Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NinjaTrader
Favorite Futures: ES, CL
 
Posts: 46 since Aug 2013
Thanks: 52 given, 6 received


SMCJB View Post
Why you should add to winners and never add to losers

I recently got an email from Kevin Davey of KJ Trading, aka @kevinkdog, regarding his latest blog post entitled “Peel Off Trading”. Kevin is a highly respected member of futures.io (formerly BMT) who has done several webinars, has his own “Ask me Anything Thread", has written a book “Building Winning Algorithmic Trading Systems, A Trader's Journey From Data Mining to Monte Carlo Simulation to Live Trading” and is also I believe the current coordinator of “The Battle of the Bots".

The basic concept of “Peel off Trading” is
In its simplest form, the trader starts out with 2 contracts, exits the first at a small profit (the “peel off”), and then holds the second as a “runner,” going for big profits. In some cases when the first contract is exited, the second contract is then modified to have a breakeven stop.
Like almost all of Kevin’s work it’s a very interesting piece based upon supporting analysis. Kevin actually back tests the exit rules upon three different strategies but the results are inclusive
Results of the out-of-sample analysis are mixed. The ES is the same, the GC strategy is better with the “peel off” method, and the JY strategy is better with the baseline (always trading 2 contracts).
While reading it I was actually reminded of a different blogpost “Does Averaging in Work?” by Ernie Chan. While I don’t believe Ernie posts here he has done several webinars. He has also written two books “Quantitative Trading: How to Build Your Own Algorithmic Trading Business” and “Algorithmic Trading: Winning Strategies and Their Rationale”.

While Kevin’s blog was looking at exit scenario’s, Ernie’s blog was looking at entry rules. It was also more theoretical in nature, but his conclusion was more decisive.
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
B) buy 2 contracts at $2 each; or
C) wait to possibly buy 4 contracts at $1 each?
Let's assume that the probability of the price dropping to $1 once you have reached $2 is p. It is easy to see that the average profits of the 3 options are the following:
A) p*(1*$1+2*$2) + (1-p)*(1*$1)=1+4p;
B) 2; and
C) p4*$2=8p.
Profit A is lower than C when p > 1/4, and profit A is lower than profit C when p > 1/4. Hence, whatever p is, either option B or C is more profitable than averaging in, and thus averaging-in can never be optimal.
As I started thinking about Chan’s analysis I didn’t like the way he considered the one situation “that the probability of the price dropping to $1 once you have reached $2 is p” and excluded other scenario’s. In a moment of boredom I decided to expand Chan’s 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 at time T+1 we have probability p of trading $1, and a probability (1-p) of trading $3. Then at time T+2 we have probability p*p of trading $0, a probability 2p(1-p) of trading $2 and a probability of (1-p)*(1-p) of trading $4.

For those of you were not aware this is what we would call a binomial tree which is used to derive the Binomial Distribution (Wikipedia, Wolfram Mathworld) and there are many option and derivative pricing models based upon binomial trees and even more based upon other type of trees.

If we consider as an example scenario A) where we buy 1 contract at $2, and wait for the price to possibly drop to $1 and then buy 2 more contracts.
In case i) where the market goes up at T+1, and T+2 to $4 we never buy the additional contracts, hence we buy a single contract at $2, that has a $2 profit. Since this has a probability of (1-p)*(1-p) the expected payout of case i) is 2*(1-p)*(1-p)

Case ii) the market goes up at T+1, and then down at T+2 to $2 we never buy the additional contracts, and we have no profit. Hence the expected payout of case ii) is 0.

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
Adding this all together our expected payout for scenario A is
2*(1-p)*(1-p) + 0 + 2*p*(1-p) - 4*p*p = -4p^2 -2p +2
It follows that the other expected payouts are B (-8p +4) and C (-8p^2 +4p)

If we plot these functions we can see that while A) and C) might outperform B) (well actually lose less) when p>0.5 (ie market is more likely to go down) but they underperform even more when p<0.5 and hence the expected returns of A) and C) are both negatively skewed in relation to B).
Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).


While this doesn’t completely agree with Chan’s analysis that’s it’s never better to scale in, it does support his analysis in that from a risk reward perspective it’s never better to scale down into a position.
I then added a fourth scenario D) where we Buy 1 at $2, and if prices go up we buy 2/3rds more at $3. I know fractions make it messy but it’s the only way to keep it an equal investment size.
The expected payout of D) is +1.33p^2 - 6p +2.67

This is the complete opposite of A) and C). It underperforms 2) when p>0.5 but outperforms by a greater margin when p<0.5, hence it has a positive expectancy skew!

This would imply that not only should you not “average down” but that adding to winning positions has a better risk reward.

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


While D has the best risk/reward it does have a lower reward than the base scenario B). Hence to achieve the same desired results, you can/should scale the positions appropriately. This is actually a great way to visualize what we are discussing as you can see below. You will see that while 3 of the 4 have similar positive profiles, scenario D has the least worse profile when the market goes against the position.

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


I then expanded the analysis significantly, going out to T+5, and including additional scale in scenarios. The conclusions were the same though. Averaging down has a worse risk reward profile than buying your entire position at entry, while adding to winners has a better risk reward profile.

Disclaimers/Notes/Flaws/Weaknesses:
A couple of the obvious flaws of this analysis are
- it uses a fixed price movement of $1 as opposed to a percentage move - while this is actually easy to fix for the purposes of this example it would add undue complication since +1-1=-1+2 but +1%-1%<>-1%+1%
- it assumes a binomial distribution when in reality a log normal distribution would be a better fit.
- Price (changes) in reality are not log normally distributed. As we all know tails are a lot lot fatter.
- Stops could potentially completely change the analysis.


Thank you for sharing this analysis.
How do you add to winners? A separate entry rule? The market is going in the right direction so add?
I have been struggling with each of these options off and on. I learned not to do A) the hard (expensive) way. B) Yields the best results for me. I have been testing D) and it has been exhausting.

Any feedback appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Reply With Quote
 
  #5 (permalink)
Elite Member
Austin, TX
 
Futures Experience: Intermediate
Platform: F-16CM-50
Favorite Futures: JDAM
 
tturner86's Avatar
 
Posts: 5,784 since Sep 2013
Thanks: 9,849 given, 11,160 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary


Big Mike View Post
@SMCJB,

I just wanted to take a moment and say thank you, I have noticed all your helpful posts on the forum and I appreciate your contribution to our community.

Mike

Anytime I see a @SMCJB post I click it... Always a good read.

Reply With Quote
The following 2 users say Thank You to tturner86 for this post:
 
  #6 (permalink)
Elite Member
Sydney Australia
 
Futures Experience: Beginner
Platform: CQG,NinjaTrader
Favorite Futures: Oil, ES, Bund, Currencies
 
teee's Avatar
 
Posts: 47 since Nov 2014
Thanks: 132 given, 95 received

@SMCJB,

Great analysis! I'm new to the futures.io (formerly BMT) forum and already a fan of yours.

While I absolutely agree with your model mathematically, I can not help to think about it from an another perspective. Given the natural law of demand and supply, where a lower price will attract more demand, which in theory will eventually bring the price back up once demand overwhelms the supply. A mean-reversion trader would live on such law and buy low sell high on the expectation that probabilistically prices have lower chances of going lower when it is already low or going higher when it is already high. This is also why people average in the first place in my understanding.

So when it comes to p (probability of price dropping) in your model, if in T+1, p happens, then when it comes to T+2, the probability of price dropping again should be in theory, less than p, say theta*p, where theta<1 and the same goes for T+3,T+4.....T+t. I tried to model the exact same thing but with such tweak, the curve on the averaging in scenario improved as you might have imagined. The magnitude of improvement varies based on the input of theta and investment time horizon t.
My opinion is that averaging losers might not be as toxic given the right strategy, right trading system,right trading time frame and right mind.



I see that you are a CL spread trader just like myself, what is your opinion when it comes to averaging in spreads trading?

Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to teee for this post:
 
  #7 (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


teee View Post
Great analysis! I'm new to the futures.io (formerly BMT) forum and already a fan of yours.

While I absolutely agree with your model mathematically, I can not help to think about it from an another perspective. Given the natural law of demand and supply, where a lower price will attract more demand, which in theory will eventually bring the price back up once demand overwhelms the supply. A mean-reversion trader would live on such law and buy low sell high on the expectation that probabilistically prices have lower chances of going lower when it is already low or going higher when it is already high. This is also why people average in the first place in my understanding.

So when it comes to p (probability of price dropping) in your model, if in T+1, p happens, then when it comes to T+2, the probability of price dropping again should be in theory, less than p, say theta*p, where theta<1 and the same goes for T+3,T+4.....T+t. I tried to model the exact same thing but with such tweak, the curve on the averaging in scenario improved as you might have imagined. The magnitude of improvement varies based on the input of theta and investment time horizon t.
My opinion is that averaging losers might not be as toxic given the right strategy, right trading system,right trading time frame and right mind.

What you are describing is similar to what is called a mean reverting process, and I would agree that this analysis would not hold for a mean reverting price process. The most common way to model this is with a Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process which behaves similarly to the way you describe, but your 'theta' is a function of how far away you are from the mean, rather than what the previous days movement was. When price changes are dependent upon prior price changes we call this serial or auto correlation. Doug Huggins and Christian Schaller's book Fixed Income Relative Value Analysis has an excellent chapter on mean reversion. Unfortunately some of the math is over my head and much of the rest of the book is outside my sphere of understanding.

teee View Post
I see that you are a CL spread trader just like myself, what is your opinion when it comes to averaging in spreads trading?

Yes I trade a lot of CL spreads and butterflies, that I hold anywhere from minutes to weeks. While CL spreads are often correlated to absolute prices, I believe CL Butterflies are mean-reverting once you are past the front of the curve. As such I am comfortable averaging into (and out of) many of my positions. I do not make 'primarily directional trading positions' though, so unsure how appropriate it would be for that style of trading.

Reply With Quote
The following 9 users say Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
 
  #8 (permalink)
Elite Member
Dallas,TX
 
Futures Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NinjaTrader, OpenQuant
Broker/Data: Zaner/Zen Fire
Favorite Futures: ES,6E,6B,GC,CL
 
Posts: 590 since Nov 2009
Thanks: 176 given, 116 received


SMCJB View Post
Yes I trade a lot of CL spreads and butterflies, that I hold anywhere from minutes to weeks. While CL spreads are often correlated to absolute prices, I believe CL Butterflies are mean-reverting once you are past the front of the curve. As such I am comfortable averaging into (and out of) many of my positions. I do not make 'primarily directional trading positions' though, so unsure how appropriate it would be for that style of trading.

I do mean reversion in stocks, but never done for futures. You hold CL for weeks, so i see you got great guts I couldn't hold more than mkt close

Reply With Quote
 
  #9 (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


emini_Holy_Grail View Post
You hold CL for weeks, so i see you got great guts I couldn't hold more than mkt close

I suspect we are talking about different things...

SMCJB View Post
Yes I trade a lot of CL spreads and butterflies, that I hold anywhere from minutes to weeks.

To put this in perspective below are two slides from a presentation I gave a few months back.
CL01 refers to the prompt month for outrights, and to the CL01-CL02 spread for spreads and to the CL01-CL02-CL03 Butterfly for Butterflys.
Other than that I think they are self explanatory.
Remember that vol scales proportionally to the square root of time. So if the 1 day standard deviation of CL01 price change is $1.37 we would expect the 1 month/20 Day standard deviation to be $1.37 * SQRT(20) = $6.12. On the other hand we would expect the 1 Month standard deviation of the CL10-11-12 Butterfly to be $0.05!
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).

Reply With Quote
The following 4 users say Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
 
  #10 (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
- Stops could potentially completely change the analysis.

Yes, in a potentially big way. What's the assumption of this analysis when it comes to stops? Are we assuming independent stop levels for each independent trade or are we assuming a common stop? I don't know many people who scale in with independent stop levels as it's not really "scaling in" at that point. There's some parts of this analysis that while mathematically may indicate one thing, intuitively it doesn't totally add up for me.

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 11:46 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 0.09 seconds with 19 queries on phoenix via your IP 54.163.210.170