|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Chuckle. It's good to see somebody with strong convictions, even if he
"just doesn't get it." The point Chuck was trying to make, and I agree,
is that there is a hidden cost to fixed fractional. Call it an insurance
premium if you like. The FACT is that you will always be increasing size
AFTER a winner and decreasing size AFTER a loser. So, on average, you
will tend to be betting bigger on the losers and smaller on the winners
than the single contract model would predict. Nothing wrong with that
but people need to know what they are paying for their insurance policy.
--
Dennis
Adrian Pitt wrote:
>
> I'm surprised Chuck Le Beau would come up with such superficial and
> incorrect
> Analysis..the bottom line here is easy:
>
> 1. If your system has a ZERO or NEGATIVE expectancy the optimal bet
> size is ZERO.
>
> 2. If your system has a POSITIVE expectancy then increasing bets size
> as your
> account grows is optimal.
>
> END OF STORY...no ifs of butts..this is 100% accurate and the judges
> decision is final.
|