Dislikedp27 on your spreadsheet is where we diverge
you reached a new high balance (10,200) at o27.... so the next bet should have been (0.02 * 10200), and the win would have put at 10404.
it is a very minute point, but it is what it is.
okay so the idea (w/ a 2% risk) is to divide the highest balance you've attained by 50, and risk exactly that figure on each trade until a new high balance is achieved.
OK, I will amend the XLS and re-post. It's currently allowing us to change the % at risk, as opposed to keeping a fixed % of the changing (highest) balance. Similar concept, but let me make the modification, and we'll see what happens, and why.
so after losing 25 times in a row, your account would be drawn down 50%.... wheras with %R, it would be 0.98^25.... which a 40% drawdown. Note that my method will draw down faster, but WILL RECOVER FASTER.
I likewise believe that there is always a trade-off, i.e. to improve one aspect one must make sacrifices in another, leaving the overall expectancy (edge) unchanged, i.e. zero. But let's allow the math to prove it one way or the other.
it is all based on your expectancy to make consistent green pips. You lose 50 times in a row (or any other stretch where your losers outweigh your winners by 50.... example) 60 losses and 10 wins over 70 trades) you bankrupt the account....
while with %R, it is impossible to ever completely bankrupt the account.
Agreed, that was the exact conclusion I reached when comparing FDA and FFS in an earlier post.
i have simply proposed a solution that is less risky than martigale, and eliminates the "make more to break even" problem.Ignored