DislikedJova I sent you a PM with an example few tradesIgnored
One of these systems look as a martingale system, is it?
DislikedThanks I shall follow it a few days.
One of these systems look as a martingale system, is it?Ignored
Dislikeddon't look at how much money this system makes, but how many pips. that is what counts !Ignored
DislikedI check your blog and one small question why do you trade in 2009 ?
We are still in 2008.....
Can you explain why ?
" 23 September 2009
Today I closed the open trades from 19 September"Ignored
DislikedNO NO !!!
No martingale systems on my accounts sir.
It is special MM model. If you check you will see it is not martingale. reduce size when account have bad trades.Ignored
DislikedIs it possible to get an investor password? (Only read)Ignored
DislikedAs this is a real live account I not so hot to give away the pwdIgnored
DislikedStartingdate: 4 september 2008
Balance at this moment: 20 102$
Read only password: neural22
DislikedJust to add my 2c worth to the discussion on MM that was starting to develop here...........
Unless you are weighting position size according to statistically proven probability of each trade setup, varying your position sizes will have no long term effect. If you're lucky, your wins will coincide with your bigger positions. If you're unlucky, you'll find one bigger loss wiping out the profits made by multiple smaller winners. The Martingale is a special case in point.
If you scale into or out of trades, each component position needs to be, on balance, profitable in its own right. Hence scaling in/out in itself can not improve your chances of long term success.
The key to long term success is expectancy. To achieve positive expectancy you must time your entries and exits effectively enough, on balance, to overcome costs. (It's not necesarily as easy as it seems). See here for more detailed info. There is no MM-based shortcut to success. In this thread (see posts #4, #31, #32, #43), I attached a number of XLSs that demonstrate how/why MM, in itself, is effectively irrelevant.
The function of position size (and stoplosses) is to protect your capital, and thus keep you in the game. Hence, everything else being equal, position size should be consistent and conservative (e.g. risk no more than 2% of your capital per trade).
-- A positive expectancy method can still lose, if you size your positions too high, allowing a 'freak' losing sequence to devastate your account. The probability of suffering N consecutive losses, given a system win rate, is shown in the table at the end of this post (#56).
-- A negative expectancy method is guaranteed to lose in the long term. But the smaller you size your positions, the more slowly you will bleed to death.
Hence you need both positive expectancy and conservative position sizes, in order to succeed.
Putting all of the above in the context of the original "Promising system?" question, the key is to put expectancy to the test. In other words, test the system using consistent position size (e.g. 1 mini-lot per trade), and over a large number of trades (preferably at least 5,000, but 1,000 should give some kind of idea), to count how many 'raw pips' are being made or lost. A very high number of trades is needed to establish statistical validity (see table here).
I recently came in contact with a money manager. He uses a trading system thatís based on neural network analysation. The results look very promising, however, I have not enough experience in forex trading to make a clear judgement.. I would like to ask you guys (who are more familiar with it) to comment on this. At the moment I'm following the demo. I will post daily the results the money manager makes.
Let me hear your thoughts on this one.
These are the coordinates of a demo account that uses this system.
Startingdate: 4 september 2008
Balance at this moment: 16.099$
Read only password: neural22
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|