|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Why would you ever cover either of the first objectives? The first one wins
8 units and loses 2 in a set of 10 for +6. The second wins 14 units and
loses 3 for a +11. The third objective makes 18 units and loses four for
+14. Covering anything at the first objective cuts your profits by over
50%. Your edge at the third objective is (3*.6)-(1*.4)=1.4 or 140% for
every dollar risked. Congrats. With that type of edge and high winning
percentage, you easily should be managing over $1 billion within the next
five years. In fact I can't believe asset allocators are not beating down
your door right now. At $1 billion getting paid 2% management and 20%
incentive you should be clearing roughly $250 million per year in addition
to your own trading profits of well over 100% per year. I wonder how you
could create such a good system and still be throwing money away on your
first two profit objectives.
sb
-----Original Message-----
From: JCDuffy@xxxxxxx <JCDuffy@xxxxxxx>
To: ist@xxxxxx <ist@xxxxxx>
Cc: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: Ira's trading method
>In a message dated 99-06-29 10:45:09 EDT, ist@xxxxxx writes:
>
><< I didn't say it was mechanical. The system produces a series of
targets,
>the
> first of which has an 80% probability, and a 1/1 risk reward ratio. The
>second
> target is a 2/1 risk reward ratio and has a 70% probability, and the third
>target
> has a 3/1 risk reward ratio and has a 60% probability. If you have doubts,
I
>can
> give you e mails to traders who will verify the fact.
>
> Ira. >>
>
>
>Sorry, any doubts just would have stemmed from the fact that I just didn't
>figure the Shiek of Brunei would be named Ira. Any method with these
numbers
>could turn a $10K account in multi milliions within 6 months with a very
low
>probability of ruin.
|