Hanover replies to PMs | Page 55 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Abokwaik replies to PMs 96 replies

Hanover - can you help me with MT4 qs please? 4 replies

Attachments: Hanover replies to PMs
Exit Attachments

Hanover replies to PMs

  • #1,081
  • Edited 7:59pm Mar 27, 2018 7:11pm | Edited 7:59pm
Quoting hanover
{quote} Should any of us have a clue? I can speak only from my own experience, for whatever it's worth. I've spent much of my 11 years in forex running around in circles. 2017 was a profitable year for me, so perhaps my trading is finally improving, but I'm still well in the red overall, especially if I count the money I've spent over the years on education. Having said that, trading is only an intermittent hobby for me, and there are traders who are much more talented and dedicated than I am (example here)....
Someone has mentioned Ed before; I thought they were speaking of Mr. Ed.

Who is he? Is he just Ed Seykota? I thought it may have been someone on the forums.

Also, thanks for linking that post with the list for 'trading made simple' from ReverseFlash. There were a handful of things in it of which I'm still not entirely sure of the value but I was unable to find it for review. 3-tick-backpressure(anomalous) is something I can guess at but I'll be looking at it next.
"The fun is in the hunt. Not the kill."
  • #1,082
  • Mar 27, 2018 8:26pm Mar 27, 2018 8:26pm
Quoting Redeflect
Someone has mentioned Ed before; I thought they were speaking of Mr. Ed. Who is he? Is he just Ed Seykota? I thought it may have been someone on the forums.
I assume that Ed Seykota is quite well-known, because he has a wikipedia page just like I do. I read somewhere that Mr Ed trades grains like oats and wheat.
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: PPI 558.png Size: 29 KB
Attached Image
Attached Image
  • #1,083
  • Mar 27, 2018 8:53pm Mar 27, 2018 8:53pm
A bit from Ed

https://www.trendfollowing.com/2015/...llowing-radio/


....and of course his trend trading song ....Yeeeeeehaaaaaaa..,...swing your partner round and round:-)
  • #1,084
  • Mar 27, 2018 10:11pm Mar 27, 2018 10:11pm
Quoting Copernicus
A bit from Ed....Yeeeeeehaaaaaaa..,...swing your partner round and round:-)
Yeeeeeehaaaaaaa...... brilliant!

Gotta love this quote from Ed: “The trading rules I live by are: 1. Cut losses. 2. Ride winners. 3. Keep bets small. 4. Follow the rules without question. 5. Know when to break the rules.”

Some pointless trivia: There was an Ed follower who posted here who called himself Atokys. It just occurred to me that Atokys is Seykota spelled backwards (but without the 'e').
  • #1,085
  • Mar 27, 2018 10:20pm Mar 27, 2018 10:20pm
Quoting hanover
{quote}I assume that Ed Seykota is quite well-known, because he has a wikipedia page just like I do. I read somewhere that Mr Ed trades grains like oats and wheat.{image}{image}{image}
I see; you're a stallion!

Mr. Ed had a functional mechanical system that worked with the majors; the first one I found and assimilated to help me identify 'normal' market parameters.

Quoting hanover
{quote} Yeeeeeehaaaaaaa...... brilliant! Gotta love this quote from Ed: “The trading rules I live by are: 1. Cut losses. 2. Ride winners. 3. Keep bets small. 4. Follow the rules without question. 5. Know when to break the rules.” Some pointless trivia: There was an Ed follower who posted here who called himself Atokys. It just occurred to me that Atokys is Seykota spelled backwards (but without the 'e').
I often found 1-4 very commonplace and simple rules. #5 was the one that always caught my attention.
"The fun is in the hunt. Not the kill."
  • #1,086
  • Mar 28, 2018 3:57am Mar 28, 2018 3:57am
Quoting Redeflect
I see; you're a stallion!
Equus maximus, LOL.
  • #1,087
  • Mar 28, 2018 4:37am Mar 28, 2018 4:37am
Quoting Redeflect
{quote} I see; you're a stallion! Mr. Ed had a functional mechanical system that worked with the majors; the first one I found and assimilated to help me identify 'normal' market parameters. {quote} I often found 1-4 very commonplace and simple rules. #5 was the one that always caught my attention.

HAHAHAHA #5 is dangerous!! I just had to reduce half the risk on one of my trades just now because I was too money driven.

4. Cut losses quickly is one that timothy sykes really emphasises. Although it makes sense I think its better to cut losses intelligently (which Tim sykes best student emphasises) because if a trade goes well against you it doesn't mean it will forever as long as your analysis tells you the overall picture is positive in your favour.

I hate cutting losses because the way I trade I should know where the market is going but sometimes seeing red makes you act impulsively, i.e moving your stops etc!!
  • #1,088
  • Mar 28, 2018 6:10am Mar 28, 2018 6:10am
Quoting Samson85
{quote} HAHAHAHA #5 is dangerous!! I just had to reduce half the risk on one of my trades just now because I was too money driven. 4. Cut losses quickly is one that timothy sykes really emphasises. Although it makes sense I think its better to cut losses intelligently (which Tim sykes best student emphasises) because if a trade goes well against you it doesn't mean it will forever as long as your analysis tells you the overall picture is positive in your favour. I hate cutting losses because the way I trade I should know where the market is going...
The exception confirms the rule.

Generally; if I am taking a loss I am very VERY wrong and there's no chance of me slowly recovering it with other trades to give it time to play out.
"The fun is in the hunt. Not the kill."
  • #1,089
  • Mar 28, 2018 1:08pm Mar 28, 2018 1:08pm
Quoting Samson85
Although it makes sense I think its better to cut losses intelligently (which Tim sykes best student emphasises) because if a trade goes well against you it doesn't mean it will forever as long as your analysis tells you the overall picture is positive in your favour. I hate cutting losses because the way I trade I should know where the market is going but sometimes seeing red makes you act impulsively, i.e moving your stops etc!!
Mathematically, it's better to cut a loss and then re-enter at a 'better' price (provided that I get the opportunity to do so, and given that the 'better price' must cover the cost of opening another position). For example, if I exit my long position, and then re-enter after price has fallen 10 pips, then I'm going to be 10 pips (minus costs) better off no matter what happens thereafter. Of course the risk is that price might not fall, and then I've closed a position prematurely, forfeiting subsequent profit (unless I enter again, at a higher price, and additional cost).

This is probably stating the obvious, but the minimum requirement to be profitable is simply to be net long while price is rising, and net short while it's falling, frequently and heavily enough to overcome costs. The more accurately I adjust my position, relative to turns in the market -- to whatever extent this is possible -- the more pips I will bank.
  • #1,090
  • Mar 29, 2018 1:55am Mar 29, 2018 1:55am
Quoting hanover
{quote}Mathematically, it's better to cut a loss and then re-enter at a 'better' price (provided that I get the opportunity to do so, and given that the 'better price' must cover the cost of opening another position). For example, if I exit my long position, and then re-enter after price has fallen 10 pips, then I'm going to be 10 pips (minus costs) better off no matter what happens thereafter. Of course the risk is that price might not fall, and then I've closed a position prematurely, forfeiting subsequent profit (unless I enter again, at a higher...
I agree with you on cutting like that as what you're doing is cutting losses intelligently.

What I have realised is when cutting losses too quickly it maybe because psychologically you maybe uncomfortable with the amount you have risked or you maybe risking too much in general. I just posted a thread about trading with 1-2% of your account balance per trade as anyone should be able to live with a 1% loss.

Closing to renter I agree with, but some traders prefer to add to it rather than cut it as they believe it will go in their direction eventually.
  • #1,091
  • Mar 31, 2018 7:26am Mar 31, 2018 7:26am
Quoting Samson85
{quote} I agree with you on cutting like that as what you're doing is cutting losses intelligently. What I have realised is when cutting losses too quickly it maybe because psychologically you maybe uncomfortable with the amount you have risked or you maybe risking too much in general. I just posted a thread about trading with 1-2% of your account balance per trade as anyone should be able to live with a 1% loss. Closing to renter I agree with, but some traders prefer to add to it rather than cut it as they believe it will go in their direction...
For the most part; it will. It's just a question of how soon and that depends on how badly the initial position was placed and what's happened since then.
"The fun is in the hunt. Not the kill."
  • #1,092
  • Apr 4, 2018 9:51am Apr 4, 2018 9:51am
Quoting hanover
{quote}Mathematically, it's better to cut a loss and then re-enter at a 'better' price (provided that I get the opportunity to do so, and given that the 'better price' must cover the cost of opening another position). For example, if I exit my long position, and then re-enter after price has fallen 10 pips, then I'm going to be 10 pips (minus costs) better off no matter what happens thereafter. Of course the risk is that price might not fall, and then I've closed a position prematurely, forfeiting subsequent profit (unless I enter again, at a higher...
I have a terrible win rate and yet in recent years have been making consistent profits. I'm the living proof that cutting losses short works. Whenever I see a Trade Explorer with a high win rate red flags fly for me. I always expand the detail and there it is, biggest losing trade >10%. I would be interested to see a graph of win rate versus risk of ruin if that were possible.

By the way, thank you for the kind words on my profile and I am too late to return the compliment to you as I notice your comments are closed.
Gone to a better place
  • #1,093
  • Apr 4, 2018 10:15am Apr 4, 2018 10:15am
Quoting hanover
{quote}Mathematically, it's better to cut a loss and then re-enter at a 'better' price (provided that I get the opportunity to do so, and given that the 'better price' must cover the cost of opening another position). For example, if I exit my long position, and then re-enter after price has fallen 10 pips, then I'm going to be 10 pips (minus costs) better off no matter what happens thereafter. Of course the risk is that price might not fall, and then I've closed a position prematurely, forfeiting subsequent profit (unless I enter again, at a higher...

Mate I dropped you an email.
  • #1,094
  • Apr 4, 2018 12:06pm Apr 4, 2018 12:06pm
Quoting smikester
{quote} I have a terrible win rate and yet in recent years have been making consistent profits. I'm the living proof that cutting losses short works. Whenever I see a Trade Explorer with a high win rate red flags fly for me. I always expand the detail and there it is, biggest losing trade >10%. I would be interested to see a graph of win rate versus risk of ruin if that were possible.
My understanding is that RoR it is determined largely by the risk% per trade, and the number of trades, rather than the win rate. I posted some links to formulae used to calculate RoR here. There is also a good explanation and calculator here.

Quoting Samson85
Mate I dropped you an email.
Many thanks for your email, sorry I missed it. I found it just now in my spam folder and sent you a reply.
  • #1,095
  • Apr 5, 2018 3:23am Apr 5, 2018 3:23am
Quoting hanover
{quote}My understanding is that RoR it is determined largely by the risk% per trade, and the number of trades, rather than the win rate. I posted some links to formulae used to calculate RoR here. There is also a good explanation and calculator here. {quote}Many thanks for your email, sorry I missed it. I found it just now in my spam folder and sent you a reply.
Thanks Hanover!
Gone to a better place
  • #1,096
  • Edited 3:19pm Apr 10, 2018 1:43pm | Edited 3:19pm
Quoting Erebus
Interesting conversation. Totally agree, I lost the last time I sat down and played until the house had an edge......
I will reply here, so that I don't further disrupt Torontoman's thread, where the topic is trend trading rather than roulette.

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree once again. What I'm saying is that no matter what strategy you use, i.e. regardless of whether you bet on the colour (red or black) that has recently come out more frequently (a 'hot streak'), or the colour that has recently come out less frequently (a 'cold streak'), or even if you just bet on red or black randomly, you will (on average) lose $2.70 for every $100 that you bet, over a large enough number of spins. A strategy of betting black after two blacks and red after two reds is no better or worse than doing the complete opposite, i.e. betting on red after two blacks and on black after two reds, or indeed any other of a zillion different strategies that anybody could ever think of. All of these strategies will on average lose $2.70 every $100 that you bet (that is because the house edge is around 1/37, due to the one green '0' on the wheel, and 1/37 = 0.027 or 2.70%). There is no mathematical strategy that can beat roulette; either you get lucky over a small number of spins, or you don't.

It also doesn't matter whether you bet on rows, columns, corners, single numbers, two adjacent numbers, odds or evens, highs or lows, etc etc, or even cover different combinations of any of these with multiple bets on the same spin: the payoff structure is such that you will still on average lose $2.70 every $100 that you bet!

It also doesn't matter how you vary your bet size, e.g. use progressions like martingale, reverse martingale, d'Alembert, Labouchere, Guetting, or any of a zillion possible progressions that anybody could ever devise, you will still on average lose $2.70 every $100 that you bet.

And it also doesn't matter whether you quit while you're ahead by a certain amount of money, because if you visit the casino often enough you're slightly more likely to fall behind than get ahead, and indeed on a few (relatively rare) occasions get further and further behind so that you would have to stay in the casino for several lifetimes before you return to breakeven, in such a way that, once again, it all balances out that you would on average lose $2.70 of every $100 that you bet. Such is the beautiful symmetry of expectancy math!

If there was any kind of strategy that could actually beat the house edge in the long-term, then naturally everybody would use it, and casinos would immediately change the rules and/or the payoff rates, or even shut down their roulette tables altogether, to save themselves from descent into bankruptcy. But they have had no need to do this for decades, even centuries. The expectancy math that underlies roulette is totally bulletproof.

To test all of this using your spreadsheet, you would need to extend columns H through N downwards to accommodate a million 'spins'. Start with $1,000,000 in column N and bet $1 per spin/row. At the end of the exercise, you should be left with approximately 1,000,000*(1-1/37) or $972,973 of your starting capital, after a million spins. (Of course this assumes that your version of Excel is big enough to this, that its RNG generates numbers that are close enough to being truly random, and that there are no errors in your formulae/calculations). Then press the recalculate button several times, both checking that the final balance averages out to around $972,973, and also that your bankroll falls far enough behind often enough to satisfy yourself that a strategy of quitting while you're ahead doesn't work.

Have fun!
________________________

[EDIT] Sorry, I think I misunderstood your strategy, which was to simply bet on the second most recently spun number. I've created (and attached) a spreadsheet of my own that works over 10,000 spins (a million was too harsh for Excel), using a strategy that bets on the second most recent spin, and after pressing the recalculate button hundreds of times, I've yet to see a single situation where the player is ahead (see the ending capital value in cell J10003) after 10,000 spins.

Column K keeps track of the highest value that the capital has achieved to date. This usually ends up higher than the starting value, but if you pick a value to quit on (e.g. when capital has reached 10,050, you've won $50), then every time you achieve this value or greater, you've limited your session gain to this value; while if you don't ever achieve this value, then you must obviously accept whatever the full loss is after the 10,000 spins.

I'm afraid I must end this here, I have other things to get on with. Thanks for the discusion.
Attached File(s)
File Type: xlsx Test Erebus roulette strategy.xlsx   540 KB | 431 downloads
  • #1,097
  • Apr 10, 2018 7:21pm Apr 10, 2018 7:21pm
Quoting hanover
{quote} I will reply here, so that I don't further disrupt Torontoman's thread, where the topic is trend trading rather than roulette. I'm afraid I must end this here, I have other things to get on with. Thanks for the discussion. {file}
Thanks for the detailed reply, I totally agree with all you say, absolutely true all of it.

I'm very impressed with your skills with Excel, you are a coder after all, so to be expected.

Also, thanks for grasping the BET SELECTION technique as mentioned in the EDIT section; most don't even understand that part.

How about I send you the 1 million actual spin numbers; we need to know the maximum amount of losers in a row. (I'm off to read Mr. Excel)

The next step to beat the casino is to devise the WAGER SEQUENCE which is totally separate from the Bet Selection process and often confused by the masses!

A flat bet strategy will never win enough but as you see, the method throws up a lot of winners regularly.

With a small enough starting point, the proper WAGER SEQUENCE will produce a positive outcome - in the short term

Something like Fibonacci increments of betting, more later
It takes a lot for me to IGNORE you, but you can try.
  • #1,098
  • Apr 10, 2018 11:32pm Apr 10, 2018 11:32pm
Great thread, subscribed here.
astroganndotcom
  • #1,099
  • Apr 11, 2018 1:02am Apr 11, 2018 1:02am
I managed to find the correct formula, refer recent posts, and was able to apply it to 45,000 cells of data for Loss or Win

See the result, 15 loss and 16 wins consecutive; pretty good I thought, I will check other random starting point in the 1 million numbers out of curiosity

But seems to me, for the short time I advocate playing, this seems a good place to start

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: 2018-04-11_15-57-17.png Size: 90 KB
It takes a lot for me to IGNORE you, but you can try.
  • #1,100
  • Apr 16, 2018 1:47am Apr 16, 2018 1:47am
Quoting Copernicus
Miserable bloody Romans, no sense of humor.
Haha, classic Python! I also enjoy Livia's (wife of emperor Caesar Augustus) speech to the bewildered gladiators in the BBC TV series I Claudius -- how Sian Phillips kept a straight face delivering these lines is beyond me. Her performance runs from around 32:25 to 34:30 in the clip below.
Inserted Video
1 trader viewing now