|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
You're right... 30% is quite nice, by anyone's book!
My point is that the goal isn't the percentage winners, but the bottom
line... which is a function of the trades that ARE winners multiplied by
'how far they ran,' minus those that are losers, and 'how strategically they
were cut.'
It's actually quite easy to generate a win/loss system skewed to the win
side. *MOST* loser trades will eventually become winners (at which point
they can be closed). If anyone doubt this, just ask yourself the opposite;
Why do most traders lose money? Answer; they wait for the winners to become
*losers* before closing the trade! (Or find a psycho-emotional reason to
pick those that are predisposed to be losers and less likely to cross into
winners.)
It's a big head game, and most traders leave their equipment in the closet.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen Davies" <owen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <Deltaforce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: [RT] Re: change of heart
| David Donhoff commented:
|
| > I'm a bit questioning of a 14 out of 15 winning track record.
| > With a win/loss ratio like that it doesn't make sense that
| > he only got a 30% trading return ($300k on $500k 100%
| > fully margined) ANNUALIZED! (etc.)
|
| Actually, I once devised a trading technique that produced
| 94% wins on T-bonds, 1990-'98 perpetual contract and not
| much worse than that when tested on real contracts. Trouble
| was, the profit per trade was only $2 before the usual costs!
| A return of 30 percent seems entirely possible I can even
| imagine someone feeling that it qualifited as a decent living.
|
| Owen Davies
|
|
|