|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-flowed>
>> AccountRisk = NetProfit * RiskPercent;
>> Num = AccountRisk / WorstCase;
>> If Num < 1 then Num = 1;
>Sure you would. If a $1000 stop makes sense for the trade, then it
>makes sense for the trade whether you're trading 1 contract or 100.
>That's not a $1000 loss for the **entire trade**, but $1000 PER
>CONTRACT. So if you trade 5 contracts, you're risking $5000. If
>$5000 is more than you want to risk, you shouldn't be trading 5 cars.
Well right, but my confusion was with the above or similar EL code.
You summed up my confusion exactly when you said that the worst
case loss is per contract, not for the entire trade. Look at the above
code. If Num relies on the WorstCase value, and the WorstCase
value relies on Num, then how could you code this scenario? The
above code that I found in Wright's book doesn't increase the worst
case loss if you trade more than one contract ... it can't because
Num and WorstCase rely on knowing what the other value is. Right?
I guess what I'm looking for is a way to adjust worst case stops
depending on how many contracts are being trading, in a system
where the number of contracts depends on the worst case stop. I
think I'll have to attack this from a different angle... or am I missing
something? I may be trying too hard and overlooking the obvious.
Jess
</x-flowed>
|