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)
Yeah, thanks for your answer. Potentially i can tweak r/r within my strategy. I'm currently with 30% winrate and 3to1 r/r over large numbers with 1% risk as optimal f. Hmm,need to do some test, because winrate of 20% requires also max 0.5% risk with 1to5 avg. risk/rewad, that would be 0% risk of ruin over 1mio bets. And in both above cases expectancy is 0.2.
In the end it's all about preferences high/low winrate, over large numbers we are all oscillate within 0.2 Van Tharp expectancy.
Right up to covid year I used to have similar thoughts, then I started understanding the subject little better, all thanks to people here.
So, I think you are at right place.
Also, you are very lucky that the people who responded were the right ones on this topic, @kevinkdog has quite a few books written which might help you in your journey.
Please note that I'm not affiliated with him in anyways, but as you can see for yourself that he is quite knowledgeable and helpful.
Yeah that's after commission+swaps(I'm with cfd's currently) + slippage. Because I'm aiming always at 3.5 r/r (this is the most probable target within what I do).
I wanted to build as much failure as possible and 20% seems an option. But, thanks for putting the brain in the right place right away, with changing what works.
Forgive me if I'm either stating the obvious or telling you something you've already fully taken into account, but I hope and trust you appreciate that backtesting any "buy-only strategy" with the backtesting period largely coinciding with what's already known (with hindsight) to have been a bull market is highly likely to demonstrate net-profitable outcomes.
Unfortunately, however, there's typically no overwhelming reason to suspect that it will continue to prove valuable moving forward (unless the market happens to remain in a long-term bullish trend while you're using the method).
I've used too many words, maybe? All I'm really saying is that you need to take great care when interpreting backtested results, because the live market to which you then apply your automated method may turn out to be materially different from how it behaved over the period of the backtest. Sometimes it's possible, to some extent, to allow for that by backtesting "a group of separate historical chunks" with the data taken from several periods of very different market behaviours.
