[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Ira's method..do the math


  • To: <dickwebb711@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: Ira's method..do the math
  • From: "kohath" <kohath@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 14:35:30 -0700
  • In-reply-to: <19990630192040.14032.rocketmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links


Dick, These are all hypothetical numbers, trades, and have nothing to do
with the wasting value of options, etc.  These numbers would represent what
one could achieve in a stock, index, or fund, or simply placing the $10,000
in a bank with %60 interest, where the amounts are fixed, and the system
represented the historical values of the trades made.  As you know, just
because one could invest $X in AOL a few years ago and achieve a gain of $Y
does not necessarily indicate that this same system would produce the same
returns in the future.  Even So, It is much better to use a back tested
system, for even if it fails, it is usually a far better system than a
system? whereby one uses guesses, for usually when one guesses, he is wrong,
except for Warren Buffet, and a few other individuals who have that knack
for picking stock winners.

As someone mentioned in a previous email, back testing a possible future
system in options is a difficult task, at best, just because of the wasting
values of the options, and the sheer number of them.  I believe around 5,000
NYSE stocks, 10,000 NASDAQ stocks, 100,000+ options.  As you know, a 10
point move on the OEX at the beginning of the month does not move the
options nearly as much as a 10 point move at the end of the month.

Kohath

----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Webb <dickwebb711@xxxxxxxxx>
To: kohath <kohath@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: Ira's method..do the math


> Kohath your numbers are correct
> do they assume options not futures?
> and even in options it doesn't really work
> the reason is that the amount invested needs to be
> greater than the amount risked. Therefor if you risk
> 10K you probably need to put up 15 or 20k
> otherwise you get wiped quick.
>
> or what is your money management that supports this?
>
> Dick
>
>
>
> --- kohath <kohath@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The calculations are as follows:
> > %80 win - %20 loss = return of %60.
> > If one places $10,000 on each trade, once per week,
> > 52 times per year, this results in
> > 52 * 6,000 = $312,000.
> > If one re-invests the original principal + the
> > profit of each trade the formula is
> > Principal * (1 + Interest)
> > ToThePowerOfNumberofTrades.
> > This results in the amount of
> > 10,000(1 + .6)^52 = 10,000(41,137,613,933) =
> > $411,376,139,330,300.
> > Don't be astonded by the amount, this is just the
> > result of compounding.  1 penny, if doubled every
> > week, after 1 year, would result in the sum
> > of $225,179,988,136,850.  Thats 225 Trillion.
> >
> > Kohath
> >
> >
> > > Kohath,
> > >
> > > I looked at your numbers below and there are a few
> > > things that do not make sense in sugesting that
> > Ira's
> > > system would make him richer than Gates. I'll show
> > why
> > > $50,000 grows to only one Million or so in a year.
> > >
> > > We start with the basics...
> > > 80% winners 20% losers
> > > 60% net winners
> > >
> > > 40 trades a year in bonds and S&P
> > > average net per winning bond trade $2930 S&P 4965
> > > average loss 1060 bonds 2535 S&P
> > >
> > > Assuming that a trader starts with 50K and has 4
> > > winners and 1 loser in every cycle. Trades one S&P
> > and
> > > two bonds per signal (per 50K in account). After
> > every
> > > cycle the trader re sets the number of contracts
> > to
> > > trade in the next cycle by seeing how many units
> > of
> > > 50K the trader has. i put the numbers in Excell
> > and
> > > after a year 50K turns into a million and then the
> > tax
> > > man takes 1/2 of it away.
> > >
> > >
> > > Good Trading
> > > Dick
> > >
> > > --- Neal Hughes <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > At 09:41 PM 6/29/99 -0500, you wrote:
> > > > >If there is in fact a system that is %80  / 1
> > on 1,
> > > > and if that system
> > > > >traded once per week, the system should give a
> > > > return of (0.8 * 1) - (0.2 *
> > > > >1)  = 0.8 - 0.2 = 0.6.  This would be
> > multiplied
> > > > times 52 weeks, or 52 * 0.6
> > > > >= 31.2.  Therefore, given the %80 probability
> > of
> > > > this system with a %60
> > > > >return, one could expect to gain, given 1 trade
> > per
> > > > week, with 1 years
> > > > >trading, placing $10,000 on each trade, 10,000
> > *
> > > > 31.2 = $312,000.  If one
> > > > >decided he wanted to own the universe in a few
> > > > years, simply re-investing
> > > > >the profits in each trade would result in a
> > balance
> > > > at the end of 52 weeks
> > > > >of
> > > > >10,000 * (1.6) ^52 = $411,376,139,330,300.  Not
> > bad
> > > > for a years trading.
> > > > >That is 411 Trillion.  I would submit if this
> > > > system actually does exist, I
> > > > >would certainly like to look into it, to see if
> > I
> > > > would possibly be
> > > > >interested in using such a system.
> > > > >
> > > > >Kohath
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > ===
> > > Big Lucky Dick
> > >
> > >
> >
> _________________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > >
> >
> >
>
> ===
> Big Lucky Dick
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>