Tom:
I'm still interested in whether or not my analysis of your Video Poker (VP) activity is reasonably correct, and if there are VP machines that do take minimum 'coin-bet' sizes greater than $1. Also, how is it that you can continue to 'extract cash' from the casino(s) day after day and NOT be barred from play? Just curious...
Dennis:
You're absolutely correct about the data necessary to calculate IV (implied volatility). What must be understood, however, is that the IV computed from a current 'nearest' or 'at-the-money' option premium is a 'valid' representative IV only for the instant that the option premium is quoted. IV can, and does, vary from moment to moment (especially in 'fast' markets), and has a varying historical time-sequence of values.
The real challenge is to determine how 'stationary' the IV will remain for the duration of a projected option trade, or how the volatility of the underlying stock (or future) may change during an option holding period (which obviously will affect the changing IV's of the option, and hence the evolution of premium values). From a PRACTICAL standpoint, AB (or ANY other similar tool) is useful only to the extent that it can help assess the 'challenge' mentioned in the previous sentence.
The 'KISS' principle applies here, and your statement about how to determine IV using AB is 'right on target'. Assuming that an option has sufficient 'liquidity', and has other 'required' trade-plan characteristics including appropriate IV projections, then generating trade signals from the underlying using AB is sufficient to 'trade' the option contract itself (in my opinion and assessment).
Brian (z111):
(Continuing the above paragraph): Why 'complicate' things unnecessarily? If one wants to use a 'historical sequence' of option IV, with some 'adjustment' the underlying stock's historical volatility, which is readily calculable in AB as a single array, can be used as a 'surrogate' for the option's historical IV. Moving on......
I totally agree with you that 'investment/ trading' comparisons should be made on the basis of % returns, rather than $ amounts. The point of my comparison, however, was to examine and consider the 'work' and 'effort' involved in producing a certain amount of equivalent 'income' when using two different endeavors.
Your description of machine-oriented gaming having a statistically 'stationary' character versus the markets' 'non-stationary' character is a valid criticism of my comparison. However, the whole purpose of back-testing is to generate a 'historical' track record of statistics that are SOMEWHAT representative of what MIGHT be expected to occur in the future. From walk-forward testing, we all know that the 'future' results are highly likely to yield lower overall outcomes than the 'in-sample' system development outcomes. One can 'reasonably adjust' EXPECTED, and probabilistic, projected future results based upon the comparison of these 'in-sample' versus 'walk-forward' tests to form an 'estimate' of 'future statistics'. Assuming that THIS is a valid approach, then a 'Reasonable Expectancy' measure for trading systems is both viable and practical. Why is this important?
It is important for two reasons:
1) To instill psychological CONFIDENCE to trade at all, AND.....
2) To provide a basis for EFFECTIVE risk-management and, hence, position-sizing (i.e., 'reward:risk exposure control).
Having mentioned this now leads me to comment on Ralph Vince's 'Optimal-f' work. Ralph has done great work and laid wonderful foundations for position-sizing ideas. However, 'Opt-f' is a VERY DANGEROUS method for position-sizing in the markets, and can directly lead to disaster.... . especially when an 'event shock' occurs. 'Opt-f' leads to FAR TOO LARGE position sizes and 'exposure' to loss and 'huge' drawdowns, even though THEORETICALLY it can yield the greatest 'terminal wealth'. All it takes is a few extended losing streaks and/or significant event shocks to destroy an account. (Theoretically, using 'Opt-f', an account can 'never' go to zero, but practically in the markets, due to some real-world limitations, it can.) Furthermore, if you commit 80% of your capital to ONE trade, and that trade is a loss, so that your account drops to 20% of what you had before the trade, you are highly-likely to be PSYCHOLOGICALLY devasted, and 'gun-shy', before
you'll be able to (ever) trade again!!! There are far 'safer' (and more 'practical') geometric-growth strategies available.
I suggest the following resource as a very worthwhile educational 'investment' in position-sizing methodologies:
"The Definitive Guide to Position-Sizing" by Van K. Tharp (at www.iitm.com) . (It's a pricey book. I have NO financial vested interest in this, but I am authorized to offer a discount code for you to save 20% off the list price when ordering from the IITM website. My 'vested' interest here is in helping others 'do better'. I had a choice to either 'earn' 20% from referrals, OR to pass this 20% to purchasers.. ..I chose to give up the 'commission' and to directly pass the discount benefit to interested buyers. For those of you who want the book at a discounted price, contact me at buzzmr@xxxxx com and I'll send you the code to use.)
Another approach that I think has merit is a modified version of Ryan Jones' "Fixed Ratio" position-sizing (which is described in his book "The Trading Game"). I use his fixed-ratio formula, but with an 'adaptive' variable ratio 'delta' value in the denominator of the formula.
Larry Williams gives HIS formula, based upon 'worst' loss, in Chapter 13 of his book "Long-term Secrets to Short-term Trading".
I program my own simulators to test position-sizing ideas and methods, and the ones I mentioned above all have merit, PROVIDING a future sequence of trade wins & losses yield a positive expectancy, AND losing 'streaks' are 'reasonable' . When you take the time to study position-sizing methods, and see what works and what doesn't in the trading arena, you'll have the 'keys to the kingdom' so to speak, and be FAR ahead of most traders and investors. In my estimation, Van Tharp's "Definitive Guide" is truly the best OVERALL reference dealing with position size, but other sources are good also as I've mentioned.
I'd be VERY CAREFUL of using Ralph Vince's 'Optimal-f' in the trading arena. If you're a gambler, playing games with well-defined probabilities, and you truly have a positive 'edge' (as David Sklansky says: 'Getting the Best of It'), then perhaps 'Opt-f' may be a viable method.
Brian, I appreciated seeing your comments.... .
Thanks to all for the stimulating posts!!
Buzz
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxx ps.com, Dennis Brown <see3d@xxx> wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> Just a quick comment about option IV.
> If you have a stock price array, then you can calculate the volatility
> of the stock. That data is what is used to calculate the
> "theoretical" option price. when the option price matches the
> theoretical price, the IV is the same. When the option price is
> higher, then people are expecting more volatility in the future than
> the past based on some news. The Implied Volatility is just back
> calculating for the stock volatility number that would have made the
> current price the theoretical price. Therefore, having the option
> price and the stock past prices is all that is needed to calculate the
> IV.
>
> BR,
> Dennis
>
>
> On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:01 PM, brian_z111 wrote:
>
> > I don't think the discussion is slightly OT ... I think it is right
> > on the money.
> >
> > Around the time that I first joined the forum someone told me off
> > for discussion stats and/or trading psych ... they said that the
> > forum was for dicussing and helping newcomers with code ... that is
> > what the forum meant to them but to me it is also a place where we
> > can discuss trading issues with real traders ... people who live and
> > breath the subject .... you can't buy this anywhere.
> >
> > Forum disucussions often exceed what is available in the run of the
> > mill trading books, especially in detail and scope.
> >
> > This is really a discussion about system design and evaluation/money
> > management.. .. it can help people to maker better private
> > applications, within AB, possibly influence Tomasz with design and
> > maybe end up with some public applications (plugins or code etc).
> >
> > We can't produce good designs if we don't sort out the design
> > philosophy in advance.
> >
> > <snip> At an average of $60/hr x 8 hrs/day (or, $0.25 x 1920 plays
> > per 8-hr-day), the ('average') 'income' generated of $480/day
> > 'pocket-change' is not too shabby.<snip>
> >
> > Yoy logicos ... honestly ;-)
> > I figured out that it averaged around $40+ an hour in 2 secs with my
> > calculator.
> >
> > Re equalizing:
> >
> > You and Tom are both talking in $ and reporting expectancy in $.
> >
> > I recommend you think about equalizing and perhaps adopt the habit
> > of reporting in % e.g. if a stock is trading at $10 and you win $1
> > then you have a 10% retun ... if a stock is trading at $100 and you
> > win $1 then you have a 1% retun ... there is a big difference.
> > Also, using % for reporting allows us to standardize our systems so
> > that we can compare, say, an option trade to a futures trade to cash
> > or stocks.
> >
> > That is why I went to all of the trouble to remodel ProfitFactor and
> > turn it into PowerFactor = PoF (the equalized, standardized,
> > reinvestment version of unequalized constant contract PF)
> >
> >
> > Re options:
> >
> > Someone asked recently about backtesting options in AB and getting
> > the data in etc.
> >
> > I was too busy to comment but I thought it was all made
> > unnecessarily difficult.
> >
> > Given that there are sophisticated option plays that involve
> > mispriced options and arbitrage opportunities etc but if I am a
> > 'game designer' then the following simplistic model seems to have
> > some use:
> >
> >
> > - an option can only win if the underlying moves so our strategy is
> > derived from BT of the underlying first, to identify an edge (if we
> > are selling options then of course we want to successfully predict
> > non-volatility but in this case I am talking about trend trading by
> > buying calls/puts)
> >
> > - to implement the strategy, using options, then the option premium
> > can be considered as being analogous to taking out an interest only
> > loan to 'buy' the shares we are controlling.
> >
> > If you look at the time to expiry and reference the 'premium' you
> > can restate the premium as 'interest costs per bar' and so quite
> > easily simulate the approximate outcomes of the trade (where the
> > premium is the carrying cost)..... although an option is the
> > equivalent of an interest only loan it is one with a fluctuating
> > interest component but since it goes to zero value on expiry the
> > mean nominal interest rate is predictable.
> >
> > Note that on this basis the interest rate you are paying is pretty
> > high because it is actually an insurance premium against incurring
> > the total possible loss (the market in your instrument goes to zero
> > value ... assuming you are long).
> >
> >
> > I think that implied volatility could tell us everything we want to
> > know about the 'cost' of this 'insurance'.
> >
> > So, if we can get implied vol data (that we can rely on) into AB we
> > can reasonably test strategies that use options as a vehicle for
> > controlled risk/reward relatively easy (I retain a reasonable
> > knowledge of synthetic strategies from my option trading days and I
> > feel there is a good deal to learn about system design from
> > understanding synthetic option strategies).
> >
> > On the other hand ... if people want to do sophisticated BT of
> > option strategies (the Greeks etc) I believe it can be done in AB as
> > long as we can get implied volatility data I think I am correct in
> > saying that all of the factors can be backcalculated from the price
> > and the implied).
> >
> > The difficulty with opt analysis is not in the math but in the data
> > itself ... lots of simultaneous expiring contracts with the symbols
> > being recycled at a later date (worse than futures?).
> >
> > Reasonable approximations might be possible if we could get data,
> > like a continuous contract, or spot cash for futures, for the
> > nearest price option implied volatility ... don't know if it exists
> > and would have to think a bit more about the implications.
> >
> >
> > Re your observation that the returns from trading exceed the returns
> > from Blackjack, or Video Poker ... using the analogy that trading is
> > a game of chance:
> >
> > - the reward in trading is far greater than any casino game but so
> > are the risks
> >
> > - casino games never experience Acts of God or not to the same
> > extent anyway ... I suppose if the casino throws you out for card
> > counting at Blackjack it is a little similar to when the markets
> > close (throw us out of the house), during times of turmoil, while
> > the insiders sort it all out (of course unlike the casino owners
> > they are impartial and never bias their decisions to benefit
> > themselves or their friends)
> >
> > - they are very predictable while the markets have a degree of
> > unpredictability about them .... the odds in casino games are
> > predictable and the same everywhere ... in market games they are
> > unpredictable and depend on the design of the game and the stability
> > of the underlying.. . the distributions of the returns of casino
> > games are by the book whereas in the market they have fat tails and
> > often don't conform to any typical distribution
> >
> > - casino games are mechanical while the markets are driven by the
> > behaviour of participants.
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is my 'off the top of me head' running total on the main
> > classes of market risks:
> >
> > - design risk (our games aren't what we think they are ... only live
> > trading can test the reliability of the model)
> >
> > - markets change, or are non- stationary (same model == different
> > game)
> >
> > - variance, which is dualistic i.e. variance of the mean (which is
> > best described by the GeoMean for trading with reinvestment) == Reward
> >
> > or if we extrapolate this, variance of the Wins/Losses ... this has
> > two components = magnitude and frequency .... empirically magnitude
> > is the best win/worst loss or other variations on the theme ...
> > empirically frequency is probability, derived for the cum frequency
> > distribution, which plays out as runs e.g. losing streaks (or
> > drawdown) == Risk
> >
> > - Acts Of God (market turmoil closes the markets for 2-3 days)
> >
> > - administrative risk (failed admin systems/tools etc)
> >
> > - behavioural risk (ours and others e.g. employees at our brokers)
> >
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxx ps.com, "Buzz M. Ross" <buzzmr@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Tom,
> >>
> >> I found your commentary about the gambling rather intriguing. I'm
> >> inherently an 'applied mathematician' , so the numbers you shared
> >> triggered some questions:
> >>
> >> Since your coin-turnover is about $4k - $18k per hour, let's take a
> >> 'high' average of about $12,000/hour (for ease of numbers), or
> >> about $200/minute turnover. My experience in video poker when in
> >> Las Vegas has been about 4 plays per minute (i.e., about 15 seconds
> >> per play to place bet, evaluate displayed initial hand, select
> >> replacement cards, and view outcome), give or take. If your
> >> experience is somewhat similar (though I suspect you take a bit
> >> less time per hand), this would translate to about $50 in coin per
> >> play, and if I understand the machines correctly, you can
> >> 'deposit' (bet) up to 5 coins per play. If this is correct, then
> >> it appears that the machines you use take $10 coins. I don't know
> >> of $10 coins, but I assume that there exist machines that allow
> >> '$10 per coin' bets and you're using the machine-stored
> >> 'cummulative- account' currency to make bets for each play. Has my
> >> analysis been 'reasonably' correct so far?
> >>
> >> If you play, say 3 machines at a time (sitting in front of the
> >> 'center' machine and having access to the left and right adjacent
> >> machines), then the analyis, of course would change a bit, but you
> >> still have constraints on the minimum time required (on average) to
> >> play a hand from bet to outcome.
> >>
> >> If my numerical analysis above is 'on target', then from a
> >> statistical standpoint, I would conclude the following:
> >>
> >> 1) Your RATE of transactional 'action' is, based upon a maximal
> >> $50/play bet, from 80 to 440 plays per hour.
> >>
> >> 2) The 'edge' of 0.5% would then evaluate to 0.005 x $50 = $0.25
> >> (25 cents) per play of 'Expectancy' , or about 4 x .25 = $1/minute =
> >> $60/hour 'AVERAGE', give or take, to sit at a Video Poker machine.
> >>
> >> 3) With an initial 'bankroll' of, say $6,000 (for numerical
> >> convenience) , it would take about 100 hours (from #2 above) to
> >> generate $6k in 'gains' to Double the inital bankroll, or about
> >> 12-13 days of 8 hours/day in front of the machine(s). Assuming the
> >> 4 plays/minute x 60 min/hr x 8 hr/day x 12.5 days/double_ $6k =
> >> 24000 plays! Of course, with an 'expectancy' of 25 cents/play, it
> >> takes 24000 plays to generate $6000 (to double, in this case, the
> >> initial bankroll).
> >>
> >> 4) At an average of $60/hr x 8 hrs/day (or, $0.25 x 1920 plays per
> >> 8-hr-day), the ('average') 'income' generated of $480/day 'pocket-
> >> change' is not too shabby.
> >>
> >> Just for fun, let's assume a stock option play as follows:
> >>
> >> A stock is trading at, say $50/share and is in an 'established'
> >> uptrend. Average true range (ATR) over the past 20 days is
> >> 'roughly' $1.00/day. An 'at-the-money' 'call' option with a strike
> >> price of 50 and expiration about 3 to 4 months 'out' (so that 'time
> >> decay' is small) is currently trading at a premium of, say, $5.00/
> >> share, and the implied-volatility is relatively 'moderate' and
> >> 'stable'. The 'delta', due to the 'at-the'money' combination of
> >> stock price and strike price, is about 50% or 0.50, so that for
> >> each dollar change in stock price, the option premium changes in
> >> the same direction about 0.5 x $1 = $0.50. Remember, the ATR PER
> >> DAY of the stock price recent history is about $1, so it might be
> >> expected that the option price will change about $.50/day in
> >> concert with stock price fluctuation. If 10 contracts of this
> >> option is purchased 'long', which is a 'position size' of 1000
> >> shares, then it is possible for the stock to move 'favorably' (due
> >> to 'uptrend') about
> > $1 in a day, and hence, for the option premium to gain 1000 x $.50
> > = $500 for that day. The 'worst-case' risk of loss, of course, is
> > the 1000 shares x $5.00 acquisition premium = $5000 ('similar' to
> > the 'typical' bankroll for Video Poker), but unless an 'unusual'
> > event-shock day occurs for the stock, it is very unlikely that the
> > full $5k commitment to the option would be lost.... a reasonable
> > 'loss limit' decision would have been instituted BEFORE the trade
> > was placed. So, for comparison purposes:
> >>
> >> 5) How much time would it ROUTINELY take to make this kind of
> >> evaluation and decision, and place entry and exit order(s) for this
> >> ONE transaction (i.e., 'play'),
> >>
> >> 6) How often can this kind of transaction be REASONABLY made over
> >> a 12 to 13 day period? Perhaps 1 to 3 of these 'plays' can be made
> >> per day, so there would be about 10 to 35 'plays' per 13-day
> >> interval. Compare this to the 24000 video-poker plays required to
> >> generate ROUGHLY the same 'revenue' (assuming the 'positive
> >> expectancies' can be made 'equivalent' ).
> >>
> >> 7) Imagine what outcome over time would accrue if, say 1/10.th the
> >> number of decisional 'plays' were made using the option scenario
> >> (2400 x $???, COMPOUNDED!! ) versus the 24000 'robot-like' (for
> >> 'correct' play) decisional plays made for the video poker
> >> endeavor. (This does NOT, of course, take into account the
> >> emotional 'joy' of playing machine poker for 'hours on end' versus
> >> the emotional 'stress' of commiting 'capital-at- risk' to the market
> >> 'mechanisms' .)
> >>
> >> This is just some of my 'neural cogitation' at play!! (;->)
> >>
> >> However, Tom, I truly would be interested in understanding if my
> >> analyis of the numbers you presented about your experience in Video
> >> Poker is reasonable or if I'm 'missing' something crucial to that
> >> analysis.
> >>
> >> Thanks for your sharing and clarification( s)....MUCH appreciated! !
> >>
> >> Buzz
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxx ps.com, "professor77747" <professor@>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Brian,
> >>>
> >>> First, about my gambling, I only play video poker and only games
> >>> which a positive return if play correctly. Most of the time my
> >>> edge is only a little over.5%. Like today, I played at .22% on the
> >>> game, but the will mail be another.33%.
> >>>
> >>> Since I average between $4000 to $18000 coin in per hour, it is a
> >>> nice profit. However, I also get comps for rooms, restaurants,
> >>> shows, cruises, and other things. It is really a good deal.
> >>>
> >>> I spent years playing with different ideas for gambling, but the
> >>> only beatable games in a casino are blackjack and video poker.
> >>> Some people are good at sports betting, but I am not one of them.
> >>>
> >>> About my formula, I use the system downdraw as a guide. I have had
> >>> 2 maximum loses in a row a few times, but I would over about 5 in
> >>> a row to lose the maximum system downdraw with my stops.
> >>>
> >>> I do worry about the system going down or losing my connection, so
> >>> I check it at my trading times most of the time. I can tell if it
> >>> may trade to I will check it. I have an email sent to my cell
> >>> phone when it trades and then I check it out to make sure that it
> >>> is correct.
> >>>
> >>> I have a laptop with me at all times so I can connect to the
> >>> internet and then connect to my desktop to check if it is running
> >>> correctly.
> >>>
> >>> I don't have much trouble except that I made a slight change in
> >>> the formula and now it doesn't place my second trade, so I quickly
> >>> login when I get an email to place the trade. I hope to have that
> >>> problem solved soon. It was working fine until I made the change a
> >>> few weeks ago.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for all your comments. I will have to do some reading.
> >>> Tom
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxx ps.com, "brian_z111" <brian_z111@ > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> This is cool ... we have fortuitously dropped onto a wavelength.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I am a gambler. I live in Las Vegas and gamble almost everyday.
> >>>>> I >have been gambling for almost 13 years and have made a very
> >>>>> nice >profit every year.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for letting me know ... I don't need to worry about you
> >>>> know because your eyes are wide open and had to consider the
> >>>> possibilty that you were a kid with your first 50K or maybe a
> >>>> young married with three kids and only 50K to your name (it
> >>>> happens).
> >>>>
> >>>> There is a funny side to my gambling experience ... I had only
> >>>> read enough to know that the Martingale was doomed to fail .. the
> >>>> house limit kept me to 8 bets (doubled) .... $5 min ... I would
> >>>> wait for 3-4 in a row (can't remember which) and then start to
> >>>> double ... after loss one I was playing for breakeven or bust.
> >>>>
> >>>> The house should have got me several times, based on my game
> >>>> plan, but it just didn't come ... I was amused at how long I got
> >>>> away with this dumb play.
> >>>>
> >>>> I was on the low rollers table and I became a minor celebrity
> >>>> amongst the junior staff ... I won that ofen they thought I had
> >>>> some big method to win .... they must have thought I was
> >>>> memorizing 1000 spins and calculating the imbalance in the wheel
> >>>> or something crazy like that ... I could see them talking and
> >>>> looking from time to time.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is amazing how we make up fantastic explanations in the
> >>>> absence of simple truth.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> <snip> When I gamble, I have a mathimatical edge just like the
> >>>> casinos have. However, when I invest, I don't have that edge so I
> >>>> am not as confident during a losing period. In gambling, I have
> >>>> had losing months of over $25000, but I always come back because
> >>>> of the mathimatical edge.<snip>
> >>>>
> >>>> I am an intuitive/action man .. my strength in trading is coming
> >>>> up with new ideas and analyzing what is behind the strategie
> >>>> etc ... any inconsistency in the theory is brutaly exposed
> >>>> (mainly done in private).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So, after a while of thinking about trading I boiled it down to
> >>>> the fact that a system was like a machine (albeit an algorithmic
> >>>> one) that produced numbers that we bet on (the numbers come out
> >>>> in series and recorded as %)..... the machine runs over the data
> >>>> (stockmarket returns) to produce the numnbers.
> >>>>
> >>>> The English are quite open about this analogy because their
> >>>> gambling houses moved onto the markets and said,"Yes, we will
> >>>> take bets on the market moves" i.e. spread betting (which
> >>>> incidentally, if it is operated well, is actually a more
> >>>> efficient way to trade than 'buying' the real shares via a broker/
> >>>> clearing house == very inefficient because there are too many
> >>>> middle men).
> >>>>
> >>>> Thereafter I worked away at gambling theory (a little bit),
> >>>> learning how to identify and measure the edge in trade ...
> >>>> nothing else really counts that much ... after that I moved on to
> >>>> MoneyManagement (how to optimize the edge).
> >>>>
> >>>> I am surprized you aren't aware of the precedents:
> >>>>
> >>>> - it wasn't Osborne ... I think it was Eduard Thorpe who
> >>>> influenced Kelly (coin toss maths) ... Thorpes paper is on the
> >>>> net bit there is no need to read it or Kelly.
> >>>>
> >>>> I recommend that traders go straight to Vince and optimalF etc if
> >>>> they want to cut to the chase when it comes to the theory of
> >>>> trading the edge.
> >>>>
> >>>> The amazing thing I found was that the current definitions of the
> >>>> edge and the methods to quantify aren't spot on ... probably they
> >>>> are too orientated to financial theory, which has different
> >>>> investment objective to traders ... also they operate in a
> >>>> different timeframe .. the short term timeframes that traders end
> >>>> up using (for good reason) tend to demand that we focus on what
> >>>> our edge is and how to quantify it ... we have less margin for
> >>>> error (because commissions erode more of our edge).
> >>>>
> >>>> Basically I had to design my own.
> >>>>
> >>>> CoreMetrics, BiSim and asymmetricalPayOff are examples of my
> >>>> efforts ... so far I believe the ideas are good, I have provided
> >>>> some insight into the edge etc but I am not certain about the
> >>>> mathematical integrity (not being a mathematician) ... I am not
> >>>> losing any sleep over the later because if the integrity of my
> >>>> current metrics fails I will just fix them up or make some new
> >>>> ones.
> >>>>
> >>>> <snip>However, I was really flying by the seat of my pants.
> >>>> Sometimes I would diviate from my idea because of my emotions. I
> >>>> then lost $22000 on 2 trades and had less than $10000 in my
> >>>> account. I decided to get a formula and auto trade it to
> >>>> eliminate any decisions and emotions. It doesn't work. I mean I
> >>>> still have the emotional stress, <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>> Logical primaries (people whose favoured psychological mode is
> >>>> thinking) tend to think that the Psychology of Trading is over-
> >>>> rated (that is saying it politely) and that algorithmic trading
> >>>> automatically eliminates any subjective elements from the trading
> >>>> room ... wrong! People use computers to trade and not the other
> >>>> way around (don't they know that Arnie triumphed over the
> >>>> machines)... . we are all fallible and psychologically complex.
> >>>>
> >>>> <snip>I didn't use stops then.
> >>>> but since I have refined my program and added stops, it seems to
> >>>> work fine<snip>
> >>>>
> >>>> I can state with confidence that the edge is best defined by the
> >>>> GeometricMean ... as long as you are reinvesting (going all
> >>>> up) .... if you want to learn a bit more start with Ralph Vinces
> >>>> first book ... notice that in his basic model the reward is the
> >>>> GM and risk is quantified by the largest loss (historically or
> >>>> empirically ... later he develops other models and investigates
> >>>> other ways to measure the risk.
> >>>>
> >>>> In short ....
> >>>>
> >>>> .... the mean is an asymptote ... the more we trade, the more
> >>>> representative our mean record is of the real edge.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ... unfortunately variance goes the other way ... the biggest
> >>>> loss gets bigger and the biggest losing drawdown gets bigger ....
> >>>> variance is an asymptotically inverse.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> AND ... it gets worse ... the roulette wheel and the blackjack
> >>>> game are mechanical ... the odds are the same always in every
> >>>> house on the planet (subject to the number of cards in the deck
> >>>> etc).
> >>>>
> >>>> The stockmarkets are not stationary i.e. not mechanical ... the
> >>>> odds move around a little or perhaps a lot.
> >>>>
> >>>> Luckily there are ways to turn the stockmarket into a game of
> >>>> TwoUp .... mechanically limit the losses (this changes the game
> >>>> somewhat) ... in the US this can be done by using options, using
> >>>> stops and maybe others I haven't found yet ... outside the US we
> >>>> can add guaranteed stop losses available through spread betters
> >>>> (CFDs') ... we should look at the security of our stops
> >>>> though ... if there is an act of the market Gods will my stop get
> >>>> blown away (maybe I am left hanging for a day or two while it is
> >>>> all sorted out?).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that my BinomialSimulation model is at worst very
> >>>> educational .. it models the market as if it is a coin toss with
> >>>> different PayOffs on the head and the tail.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I am just trying to learn how to manage my risk better to
> >>>>> improve >my formula.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am guessing a bit but it seems to only need tweaking ... better
> >>>> check if there is any way your stops can fail (broker acts etc ..
> >>>> computer failure if AT) all of this equals risks maybe worse than
> >>>> some other obvious ones.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, what will happen if you get the biggest loss two in a row
> >>>> or what will happen (to your account that is) if you get the mean
> >>>> loss 2,3,4 etc in a row ... assuming that losses tend to converge
> >>>> on the mean since if they are randomly selected.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Another risk, not found in card games, is that one big loss may
> >>>> have an influence towards causing a second loss in a row .....
> >>>> above and beyond the normal odds.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is a lot in it and it takes a lot to boil it all down to a
> >>>> few pages ... Vince is a very good start.
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxx ps.com, "professor77747" <professor@>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Brian,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am a gambler. I live in Las Vegas and gamble almost everyday.
> >>>>> I have been gambling for almost 13 years and have made a very
> >>>>> nice profit every year.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When I gamble, I have a mathimatical edge just like the casinos
> >>>>> have. However, when I invest, I don't have that edge so I am not
> >>>>> as confident during a losing period. In gambling, I have had
> >>>>> losing months of over $25000, but I always come back because of
> >>>>> the mathimatical edge.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In investing, I don't know if I will come back or not. I am
> >>>>> fortunate that I have made enough profit that I am working on my
> >>>>> profits.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When I first started investing, I studied the charts and had an
> >>>>> idea for investing. It was just slightly profitable making an
> >>>>> annual 2% profit. Than about 5 years ago, I started looking at
> >>>>> gold futures and my profit was much higher. I ran $10000 up to
> >>>>> $30000 in my first year of investing in gold futures which was
> >>>>> about 3 years ago. However, I was really flying by the seat of
> >>>>> my pants. Sometimes I would diviate from my idea because of my
> >>>>> emotions. I then lost $22000 on 2 trades and had less than
> >>>>> $10000 in my account. I didn't use stops then.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I decided to get a formula and auto trade it to eliminate any
> >>>>> decisions and emotions. It doesn't work. I mean I still have the
> >>>>> emotional stress, but since I have refined my program and added
> >>>>> stops, it seems to work fine.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am just trying to learn how to manage my risk better to
> >>>>> improve my formula.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Tom
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxx ps.com, "brian_z111" <brian_z111@ >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tom,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thankyou that helps.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Going to the forum is like going to the Doctors ... the more
> >>>>>> you tell us about the system the better chance that we can help.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> At first I wasn't sure if you were genuine but I remember you
> >>>>>> know and you are a very genuine, open and modest person.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We talked a little once before .... Razbarry helped you with
> >>>>>> your AT algorithms etc.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A couple of years ago Louis asked about what the realistic
> >>>>>> expectations for a trader should be and when I said "25% a year
> >>>>>> is the min, as the becnhmark", some people disagreed and said I
> >>>>>> was overstating the case.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I recall that you came to my rescue by saying you were doing
> >>>>>> around 50%PA ... I think that was your first year of trading,
> >>>>>> or maybe your first year of AT.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> IMO this is first and foremost a case study in Trading
> >>>>>> Psychology more so than technical issues ... although one
> >>>>>> reflects on the other.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, the general tone of the advice you have received so far is
> >>>>>> correct..... .. you are the only expert, with regards to yourself.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps we can help with a second opinion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> However ... it is only an opinion:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - I, and the forum, can only read so much from a few short posts,
> >>>>>> - it is too much responsibility to make life changing decisions
> >>>>>> for others,
> >>>>>> - I am reluctant to say too much, since you are going so
> >>>>>> well ... I say anything that detractrs from your success so far.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please keep in mind that the issues you are canvassing here are
> >>>>>> bigger than Ben Hur ... your case history could make an
> >>>>>> interesting trading book all by itself.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We can't discuss every single issue in detail, and you won't be
> >>>>>> able to process it all in a short space of time, (processing is
> >>>>>> done in different ways by different people) ..... we can make a
> >>>>>> start ... you will have to break it down into bite size pieces,
> >>>>>> digest a bit at a time and maybe come back to the forum for
> >>>>>> some more at later stages.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sport is a metaphor for life ... for me (my wife doesn't think
> >>>>>> so ... she is a musician and so for her music is the key to
> >>>>>> life).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Trading is a high performance event.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We are all unique ... our trading styles are as individual as
> >>>>>> our fingerprints (recently Dennis and I swapped a couple of
> >>>>>> trading insights in the forum ... in many ways he has a similar
> >>>>>> approach to me == 1/10,000 forum members, but in other ways we
> >>>>>> can't agree at all).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Some things we all have in common though.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> High performance demands aptitude; honed by theory, practise
> >>>>>> and performance. in a cycle of continuous improvement.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You seem to have the knack for it (aptitude) ... in a very
> >>>>>> short space of time you have wandered into the winners circle,
> >>>>>> almost without any self awareness.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have had to work my way into the winners circle, self
> >>>>>> consciously, by philosophising and studying.... I feel a bit
> >>>>>> like a kid at College ... even though I got good marks last
> >>>>>> year and have done some good original research I look up and
> >>>>>> see a mountain of text books still on the table in front of
> >>>>>> me ... miles more still to learn.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If we don't have the aptitude in the first place we will never
> >>>>>> make it, no matter what.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If we have an abundance of aptitude we can do quite well
> >>>>>> without as much theory and practise as others.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Also, we all have a weak link, and so we can go so far without
> >>>>>> making the effort to strengthen our weak link (usually we will
> >>>>>> avoid our least favoured aspect when really we should make it
> >>>>>> our priority to strengthen it).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think that at the moment you are a little like a College
> >>>>>> sportsperson who easily made it to the big league without even
> >>>>>> trying ... while 1000's of other hopefuls, who busted their
> >>>>>> arse, are still back there somewhere:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - I hear that this it is difficult to make the transition from
> >>>>>> 'chasing the dream' to 'living the dream' .... it is different
> >>>>>> once you get there (the challenges of staying there are
> >>>>>> different to the challenges of getting there).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - because you are a little unselfconscious about it all, and
> >>>>>> moved from the amateur ranks to the pros, in such a short space
> >>>>>> of time, you haven't 'paid your dues', the way many of us have
> >>>>>> and so know you have to live with that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps you don't realize how good you are and/or will have to
> >>>>>> do some catchup on 'making the hard yards'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note that the things that a professional golfer is concerned
> >>>>>> about are a world apart from the things that amateur golfers
> >>>>>> think about ... a pro may study every little aspect of his game
> >>>>>> (mental and physical) ... redesigning his/her game and
> >>>>>> repetitively working on the detail to improve.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As I said ... this is only an opinion ... one opinion ... take
> >>>>>> it all with a grain of salt.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You might just be one of those traders who remains a little un-
> >>>>>> selfconscious about it all.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A few specifics and observations (not in order of priority):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - I believe you are quite smart and technically competent but
> >>>>>> you don't blow your own trumpet
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - you know about the metrics ... you can do the metrics ...
> >>>>>> but you don't actually use any of them except for Profit% and
> >>>>>> DD ... perhaps there is a lesson there for you ... they seem to
> >>>>>> be your metrics of choice ... you are in good company because
> >>>>>> Howard is exceptionally well studied and knowledgeable on the
> >>>>>> Quants and CAR/MDD is his chosen metric (or one of them).....
> >>>>>> if it ain't broke why fix it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - if you are really asking a question about metrics (after all
> >>>>>> of this time suddenly you want to dig into them?) then we (you
> >>>>>> and the forum) will need to go step by step ... you can't
> >>>>>> possibly absorb Quantsy knowledge and skills overnight).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Study one metric, or evaluation idea, and ask questions about
> >>>>>> it and then move onto the next.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - perhaps you are really asking something else ... you seem to
> >>>>>> be questioning your own tolerance for risk ... there is no
> >>>>>> objective metric to measure this ... it comes from inside and
> >>>>>> you are the only one who can see inside yourself.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A few reflections on 'tolerance for risk' to get you started:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - for some people it is innate ... I am risk avoiding
> >>>>>> machine ... it is just in me .. I can instinctively taste, see
> >>>>>> and smell risk ... I see risk in places you guys can't even
> >>>>>> imagine.... you can't buy that skill.... just do your best with
> >>>>>> what you have.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - there are formal risk assessement techniques and processes
> >>>>>> etc ... I worked in an industry where we ate risk assessments
> >>>>>> for breakfast ... formally recorded risk using written
> >>>>>> procedures.. .. some knowledge of formal techniques might help
> >>>>>> some .. this knowledge is in my subconsious and coupled with my
> >>>>>> innate feeling for risk it must help me a good deal.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - I am not a gambler ... it is interesting that our money
> >>>>>> management strategies were honed by gamblers ... Osborne ->
> >>>>>> Kelly -> Vince et al and from betting on coin flips (we call
> >>>>>> that two up in Australia) to betting on a move on the price of
> >>>>>> Gold.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - 20/30 years ago I went into business for the first time .. I
> >>>>>> was young and silly but somehow I realized that it involved
> >>>>>> risk and coping with risk .... this seemed to be something I
> >>>>>> had to test rather than intellecutalize.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I hate Casinos ... noise, smoke, a fair % or the people are
> >>>>>> pretty rude, some big drinkers etc ... but I went quite often
> >>>>>> for a few months .. gave myself a kitty to start with ... the
> >>>>>> rule was to leave if I lost the kitty ... used a totally dumb
> >>>>>> methodological approach ... played roulette on the red and the
> >>>>>> black .. doubled the stake after a loss ... hadn't even read
> >>>>>> the textbooks about gambling and staking ... know a lot more
> >>>>>> about the odds now.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I won week after week ... only small amounts ... got bored in
> >>>>>> the end ... went one evening and played like James Bond ...
> >>>>>> lost the lot in three hours (it wasn't a lot of money), walked
> >>>>>> out and never went back.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Here is what I found:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - I can stick to my game plan
> >>>>>> - things don't get out of control if you have a plan when you
> >>>>>> go in
> >>>>>> - you can't learn emotional control etc ... or be coached in
> >>>>>> it ... your temperament is your temperamement ... you either
> >>>>>> have it or you don't.
> >>>>>> - when money is involved it seems like life and death ..
> >>>>>> normally nice people argue over a two dollar bet
> >>>>>> - idiots around me and the noise are very off-putting when you
> >>>>>> are focused on the game and your strategy ... it is hard to
> >>>>>> block out the noise ... one has to make an effort
> >>>>>> - some people are innately bad losers ... kick the table and
> >>>>>> fight with the staff
> >>>>>> - every one is an expert ... everyone has their pet theory ..
> >>>>>> they love to talk gambling and especially give you some free
> >>>>>> coaching
> >>>>>> - some girls liked the excitement and the money (I was
> >>>>>> approached a few times)
> >>>>>> - newcomers distracted me from the game asking for tips etc ...
> >>>>>> I must have looked like I knew what I was doing ... I looked
> >>>>>> pretty serious writing down the trade sequences etc
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - no matter how much money is a stake ... the blood pressure
> >>>>>> goes up .... whether or not you can keep the blood pressure
> >>>>>> down is a natural skill ... perhaps we can learn to manage it
> >>>>>> better if it is not our natural bent.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As I said ... all skills we can't really learn ... I guess if
> >>>>>> we devised a list of simple rules, practised them and stuck to
> >>>>>> them it would help those who weren't born as 'cool as a
> >>>>>> cucumber'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You might be asking yourself those type of questions, via the
> >>>>>> forum, rather than asking questions about metrics.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yu might just sale through this step almost unconsciously or
> >>>>>> you might have to think about some new stuff, to give you a
> >>>>>> point of reference from which to make your decisions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Another relevant factor:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - no man/woman is an island
> >>>>>> - our environment affects us ... at different stages of our
> >>>>>> lifes we have different duties to face up to .. and we are
> >>>>>> living out a different life story.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am 58, semi retired .. . my kids are all grown up and have
> >>>>>> left home ... my wife has her own career .. she doesn't get
> >>>>>> involved in the details of my trading ... I am a free man, in
> >>>>>> most ways (spiritually and philosophically etc) ... I have a
> >>>>>> life outside of trading ... I have goals in my life that are
> >>>>>> not based around trading ..... trading is a means to an
> >>>>>> end ... albeit a wonderful trading ground to develop my
> >>>>>> temperament and skills ... all of this interacts dynamically.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps these are the questions you have to ask yourself:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - you say you can't take those losses (if they happen) ... are
> >>>>>> you 100% sure about that?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - is trading life and death OR more important than that (famous
> >>>>>> quote from a US sports coach)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - if you do lose your stake will you really blow up or not
> >>>>>> (commit sucicide as some do)?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - are you playing with money you can afford to lose?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - do you have a good job ... will it really matter if you lose
> >>>>>> at trading (financially speaking) ... do you have a partner,
> >>>>>> kids,sick parents etc that are dependent on your income? ... if
> >>>>>> so how will they react if you blow up?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - is making money your life goal or a means to an end?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - is making money the primary reason you trade? or is the fun
> >>>>>> of the game the real reason you trade? ...if you are really
> >>>>>> playing the game for the games sake then you probably won't
> >>>>>> explode if you do the dough.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Finally - if doing some more work on your technical knowledge
> >>>>>> of metrics, evaluation and money management will help you make
> >>>>>> your decision then you have a lot of work in front of you.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note that in the past you got to where you are without it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you want to learn more about MM etc then Howards book, the
> >>>>>> forum and other books/sites definitely help ... it has taken me
> >>>>>> years and I am still not an expert in the subject ... I can
> >>>>>> talk to anyone about it without embarressment though.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As an aperitif ... a couple of points on metrics, risk and MM:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - there is a theoretical (mathematical) stake for every system
> >>>>>> and account size (a lot of hours study required to learn this
> >>>>>> stuff) but there is a corresponding optimal emotional level of
> >>>>>> risk ... where is your emotional level... really ... not
> >>>>>> pretend level ... you can't fake it ... figure it out now
> >>>>>> before going any further.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - your biggest loss to date is not the biggest loss you will
> >>>>>> ever experience
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - the aim of MM is to stay in the game ... we can't win if we
> >>>>>> have no money left to play with
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - the size of the account is very important ... the bigger our
> >>>>>> account the further we are away from 'isk of ruin' ... in
> >>>>>> trading $10k is just training fees ... if you lose that much
> >>>>>> consider it the cost of your training course .... $100K is the
> >>>>>> minimum stake required to play the game (same as the tables in
> >>>>>> the casino) ... if we have less than $100k we go to the low
> >>>>>> rollers tables (options etc ...easy on the margin trading) ...
> >>>>>> at least $200-300K is needed to even get into the high rollers
> >>>>>> room.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - if you are ruined do you want to walk away with half of your
> >>>>>> stake or are you really happy to play hard, play to win and
> >>>>>> wala away with zero dollars if you are ruined
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - if you trade on margin are you really happy to walk away
> >>>>>> owing the broker money if you are ruined ... maybe have to hold
> >>>>>> a fire sale to pay your debts?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - looking at your systems, in some cases, you have 0.6 or maybe
> >>>>>> 0.55 prob of a loss ... six in a row == 0.6^6 ... and you have
> >>>>>> very high ave losses (trading futures on margin?) ... so far
> >>>>>> you haven't experienced that kind of losing sequence?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is not emotional Q factor .. this is a rational
> >>>>>> probability (probabilities happen with more certainty than we
> >>>>>> think they will)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Re the metrics:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - if you want more help please ask ... one at a time ... the
> >>>>>> forum should be able to assist
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - most,or all of them, have had some thought put into them so
> >>>>>> they all tell us something ... whether you place a value on
> >>>>>> what they are telling you is another matter
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - I have made some psuedo tickers from random data (say 100
> >>>>>> tickers) ... then I optimized a MACrossever system on those
> >>>>>> stocks ... naturally enough, while the population is break even
> >>>>>> (if you join all of the psuedo tickers together they add up to
> >>>>>> a sideways market without significant up and downs in
> >>>>>> between ... if I look at individual stocks some outperform (the
> >>>>>> individual samples have variance ... half are up and half are
> >>>>>> down ... how much up and down depends on the volatility I
> >>>>>> introduce to the process when I make the psuedo tickers) ....
> >>>>>> after I optimize if I sort by any metric in most cases the same
> >>>>>> tickers end up at the top i.e. a large number of AB's builtin
> >>>>>> metrics are all telling us the same, or similar things ....
> >>>>>> looking at the exceptions, then looking at the 'correlated'
> >>>>>> metrics would be one way to start to learn something about
> >>>>>> metrics ... why are some similar and others different ... I
> >>>>>> guess we could study the exceptional metrics and either accept
> >>>>>> or r
> > eject them, for our own use ... that would either narrow the field,
> > byu getting rid of some, or turn up something we like.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxx ps.com, "professor77747" <professor@>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Brian,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Here are the reports for my 2 formulas. The profit doesn't
> >>>>>>> seem much
> >>>>>>> different, but this year, the profit shows a difference of
> >>>>>>> over $5000.
> >>>>>>> The first one is the one that I posted at Report 1
> >>>>>>> <http://success101. biz/Backtest% 20Report. htm> . The second is
> >>>>>>> the less
> >>>>>>> risky one at Report 2
> >>>>>>> <http://finance. groups.yahoo. com/http: //success101. biz/Backtest% 20Report
> >>>>>>> \
> >>>>>>> -15.htm> .
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What metric do you use to decide that you (your systems) are
> >>>>>>> profitable
> >>>>>>> ... annual % return or what? I just look at the profit %.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When you say your system is "risky" what exactly do you
> >>>>>>> mean ... is this
> >>>>>>> a hunch or do you use a metric to quantify risk? I look at the
> >>>>>>> system
> >>>>>>> downdraw. I started with 5000 over a year ago and ran it up to
> >>>>>>> $30000,
> >>>>>>> but I was lucky. I then took out $10000. I really needed
> >>>>>>> $20000 to
> >>>>>>> start. You will see that the system downdraw is over $11000. I
> >>>>>>> trade
> >>>>>>> gold futures and a contract requires about $6000 so I need at
> >>>>>>> least
> >>>>>>> $17000 to trade one contract.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What do you mean when you say that both systems backtest
> >>>>>>> nearly the
> >>>>>>> same except for "price"? .... what is the same after a
> >>>>>>> backtest? ...
> >>>>>>> what price are you talking about? Since I trade using a 6 hour
> >>>>>>> bar and I
> >>>>>>> only trade at the close of the bar, the backtest results are
> >>>>>>> the same as
> >>>>>>> my trades except for a slight difference in price sometimes
> >>>>>>> when I trade
> >>>>>>> at different price than the backtest price. What I meant was
> >>>>>>> that the
> >>>>>>> system trades and the backtest trades are almost identical. I
> >>>>>>> auto trade
> >>>>>>> my formula and I use market orders so the trades are placed
> >>>>>>> fast. The
> >>>>>>> biggest difference between the actual trade price and the
> >>>>>>> backtest trade
> >>>>>>> price has been 20 cents. While this is a $20 difference in my
> >>>>>>> cost, I
> >>>>>>> still make a good profit on the trades. I could probably save by
> >>>>>>> manually trading and placing limit orders, but I like to auto
> >>>>>>> trade so I
> >>>>>>> don't have to worry about watching the computer at my trading
> >>>>>>> times
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The reason that I want to know about the risk is that I am
> >>>>>>> going to
> >>>>>>> start trading 2 contracts now that I have $40000 in my
> >>>>>>> account. The
> >>>>>>> difference in profit between the 2 formulas is over $10,000 in
> >>>>>>> a 18
> >>>>>>> month period, but most of that difference was this year. The
> >>>>>>> system down
> >>>>>>> draw was over $11,ooo on the more profitable formula and only
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>> $8000 on the less profitable one.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I must say that I was ready to quit when I lost over $11,000
> >>>>>>> so that I
> >>>>>>> why I am worried about the risk. On 2 contracts, that would be
> >>>>>>> $22000. I
> >>>>>>> don't know if I can handle it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks for your help,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tom
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxx ps.com, "brian_z111" <brian_z111@ >
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hello Tom,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The definitions, for the metrics, are in Howard Bandy's QTS
> >>>>>>>> book.
> >>>>>>>> I believe they are also in the help manual (not certain about
> >>>>>>>> that).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That is a good place to start.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In my experience we have to make the metrics our own, so to
> >>>>>>>> speak, by
> >>>>>>> learning how they are calculated and then trying to understand
> >>>>>>> what they
> >>>>>>> are measuring (compared to each other).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So, you are trading successfully for at least a year and don't
> >>>>>>> understand the statistics ... I don't know if that is good or
> >>>>>>> bad or
> >>>>>>> something else but it doesn't appear to be a problem for you.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Anyway, it is good that you want to keep learning and
> >>>>>>>> extending your
> >>>>>>> knowledge, even though you are already successful.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I don't know if I can help but please clarify your question
> >>>>>>>> further to
> >>>>>>> give me, or others, a fighting chance:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Please post the report for each system over the same time
> >>>>>>>> range.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What metric do you use to decide that you (your systems) are
> >>>>>>> profitable ... annual % return or what?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When you say your system is "risky" what exactly do you
> >>>>>>>> mean ... is
> >>>>>>> this a hunch or do you use a metric to quantify risk?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What do you mean when you say that both systems backtest
> >>>>>>>> nearly the
> >>>>>>> same except for "price"? .... what is the same after a
> >>>>>>> backtest? ...
> >>>>>>> what price are you talking about?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxx ps.com, "professor77747" professor@
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I have a very profitable formual that I have been
> >>>>>>>>> autotrading for
> >>>>>>> over a
> >>>>>>>>> year. However, it is also risky. I have another formula that
> >>>>>>>>> is not
> >>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>> profitable, but is also not as risky. My formula trade almost
> >>>>>>> exactly as
> >>>>>>>>> a backtest except for the price which varies by so little
> >>>>>>>>> that it is
> >>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>> a factor.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't understand any of the risk % factors in the top
> >>>>>>>>> section and
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> factors below the drawdown figures in the bottom section.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Here is a link to the statistics for last year which are very
> >>>>>>> similar to
> >>>>>>>>> this year except that there is more data. Statistics
> >>>>>>>>> <http://success101. biz/Backtest% 20Report. htm>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Please help me understand these statistics. Thanks
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Tom
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- ------
> >
> > **** IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ****
> > This group is for the discussion between users only.
> > This is *NOT* technical support channel.
> >
> > TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT send an e-mail directly to
> > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
> >
> > TO SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS please use FEEDBACK CENTER at
> > http://www.amibroke r.com/feedback/
> > (submissions sent via other channels won't be considered)
> >
> > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
> > http://www.amibroke r.com/devlog/
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>