Diversified Trend Trading Approach

How Do I know if I have a Strategy with Positive Skew?

You can do this visually without having to understand statistics. Positive skew means that your average winners are greater than your average losers and you are trading the right hand side of the Distribution of Returns to catch the fat tails (white swans).

Have a look at the realised (blue) and unrealised (green) equity curve below produced with MT4 strategy tester.



Notice how the green line (unrealised equity curve) sits in general above the realised equity curve. When it strays below the realised equity curve (blue) it hugs the realised curve closely. This is because we always cut losses short with this technique.

When sitting above the realised equity curve, it can significantly outperform. For example have a look at trades 249 to 274. This is when the EURUSD had a magnificent bear run in early 2015 and we took a ride with many shorts. Unfortunately we always need to give back some of this profit when the trend bends.

This visual clue with the realised and unrealised equity curve is symptomatic of divergent strategies of a trend following nature. With a trailing stop condition applied to your strategies, you will never exceed the unrealised equity curve. You always give back some profit to the market. This is the nature of trend following. However a trailing stop condition does assist in locking in most of the profit along the way in your unrealised equity curve.

With strategies of negative skew, you will find the reverse occurs. The Unrealised equity curve can sit well below the realised equity curve. This is a symptom that the strategy is warehousing risk and is likely to end in tears over the long term.

How Do I Know that my Strategies are not Curve Fit?

This is perhaps the most important consideration to assess in testing the long term performance of your strategies. It is very easy these days to generate wicked equity curves that ascend in a linear way to the stars....however fall off the cliff as soon as you take them to the live trading environment.

What you need to realise is that it is the market condition that decides your fate.....not the cleverness of your system design.

For example, let's assume you have developed a trend following system. It is illogical to conclude that your strategy will perform favorably at all times. Your fate is determined by the market. If markets are not trending then your system will not perform.....but this is where you need to deploy risk management methods to prevent your drawdowns building too fast.

So the way we can identify if our strategy is curve fit or not is to map the equity curve against the market condition. We do this by superimposing market data against the equity curve and mapping those conditions when the strategy performed well, and in those conditions it didn't.

Have a look at the equity curve below.




Firstly have a look at the blue realised equity curve. Note that it is not linear. This is symptomatic of any trading strategy. They perform well when market conditions are favorable, but build drawdowns when they don't. For a trend follower you should be looking for stepped equity curves.....not linear ascending ones. If you are a trend follower with an equity curve that is linearly rising......then you are kidding yourself and your strategy is curve fit.

Next have a look at the grey line which is market data. Note where there are strong trends and where they are not. Your equity curve should rise during strongly trending conditions and drawdowns should build when they are not. Refer to the yellow and pink shaded regions. The yellow shaded regions are when the equity curve performed strongly. Ensure that during these times that markets were also trending. Note that despite the strength of this group of strategies in capturing most trends, it does not catch all of them. This shows there is room for improvement in finding additional strategies that can plug these gaps.

The pink regions are when drawdowns were building. Refer to market data to understand why? You will see that conditions were choppy during these periods.

Now note how few trending conditions were observed over the 20 year time horizon. In a nutshell there were only 6 periods which allowed your equity curve to soar using this suite of trend following systems. This is symptomatic of trend following. Most of the time you are managing drawdowns. Trending conditions are unpredictable in nature.

Key to a successful trend trading strategy is actually not in catching trends as any trend following system should be able to achieve this. The key is in how to prevent capital deterioration during unfavourable market conditions. Trade frequency is essential here. You want to keep it low per strategy as significant trending conditions are few and far between. Avoid the noise and frequent whipsaws of over-trading when significant trends do not exist. This is contrary to what most traders think (that prefer higher sample sizes) and why trend trading needs to stick to higher timeframes where noise is less prevalent. Diversification is your only way to keep trade samples low per strategy but increase trade frequency through more 'significant' opportunities.

Cheers

C

Thank you a lot!

Paolo

More wisdom shared in this thread then any other thread in this forum. I am truly appreciate your sharings, exactly what i needed now as i am taking baby steps in the land of backtests
"Follow the price" is my mantra as well.
Thanks C for coming back.

Much obliged Rmg :-)

It's great to be back mate.

The Difference Between Price Following and Prediction



When we boil our trading philosophies down to bare essentials we can classify our trading styles into two broad camps.....the price followers and the price predictors. When you compare and contrast these two broad styles, you quickly realise that they are almost the antithesis of each other.

It took me a long time to understand the distinction between price following and price prediction. After all aren't all forms of trading predictive to the extent that we use historical price as a basis to predict the future? Well this is where it pays to dig into the nuance to understand the subtle but very important differences which lead to diametrically opposed outcomes in approach.

In understanding the notion of 'price following' we assume that current price represents the 'now' and we closely follow it's movement a few steps behind like a shadow. We simply follow the 'now' with a tight trailing stop that is configured to trail just beyond the everyday volatility of price to never let our trade position wander to far away into loss territory.

The definition is couched in the principle of risk management. What we are doing is managing our trade risk at all times by shadowing current price to ensure that our unrealised position never builds a significant loss position. We are ambivalent to the future direction but just understand that sometimes, if we simply follow this process of 'follow the leader' that occasionally we will catch the outlier which pays for all the whipsaws of being wrong.

To follow price is a forward looking statement in that we do not use historical price to predict a future, but rather we simply use current price as our leader and follow it like a shadow into the future. As a result the strategies price followers develop are agnostic with respect to which market is traded. Provided that the market is liquid, then under this philosophy all markets should be traded the same way...with an open profit condition and a trailing stop so we hug current price.

Now we all can play the game follow the leader as it requires no analysis apart from understanding how to keep away from the volatile noise of the 'now'.

On the other hand, when we predict future price we are prepared to weaken our stance towards risk management and rather project our hopes on a future outcome of price trajectory based on our assumed knowledge of the past and the way price has historically behaved. For example we project a future based on our understanding on where price is currently now, and our analysis of where it will end up shortly. As a result, predictors like to pick certain markets that exhibit recurrent patterns and use this as a basis to project into the future.

Playing the game of prediction requires us to analyse the past and make an inference about what price is going to do tomorrow. The method is always 'curve fit' to a degree unlike price following which is ambivalent towards the way price has behaved in the past.

The difference between price following and prediction is a subtle but important one and lies in our emphasis placed towards either risk management or profit projection.

Price Followers

Price followers are uncertain about the future and operate off the principle that complex systems such as our financial markets exhibit 'fat tails' or long/short price extended anomalies which occur more frequently than what a Gaussian distribution would imply. Under this general principle, the application of a repetitive trading system that only is active during more extreme market conditions and simply cuts losses short at all times and let profits run will, in the long run and with the Law of Large Numbers capitalise on these 'trending anomalies'. Price following is a less popular form of trading style given it's behavioural difficulty in application and practiced by systematic diversified trend following/momentum breakout approaches.

This style of system is characterised by the following broad criteria:

1. This philosophy is forward looking in that recent history is not regarded as a basis to project future returns. The future is unknown and uncertain. As a result, these traders simply follow price and do not attempt to predict it.
2. This type of system cuts losses short and lets profits run and creates an asymmetrical open ended return profile that is positioned at all times to capture extended price moves in the long or short direction. This technique cuts short the possibility of encountering 'black swan events' and capitalizes on the potential to capture alpha from 'white swan events'. As a result, this style of technique possesses strong positive skew (many small losses with occasional very large wins).
3. This style of strategy is unsuccessful during stable market conditions ......but tends to be successful when market conditions change/adapt. As a result, this style of trading strategy has an infinite shelf life as the technique simply requires market transitions that ultimately are ubiquitous to all liquid markets over time. The success of this approach is therefore couched in terms of survivability and risk management while unfavourable stable market conditions persist. To participate in this technique you need to be available at all times to the unpredictable event....but preserve the capital during the meantime while waiting for the divergent condition.
4. In this style of system the entries are far less important than the exits. Alpha is generated by the extreme 'white swan event' where only a handful of trades pay for the vast majority of small losses or effective breakeven trading results. For example, the top 5% of trades create the alpha. The unbounded profit condition is the key factor responsible for the success of this style of system....hence why we regard the exit condition as being the alpha generator and the trailing stop as the basis for the long term success of this style of approach. Examples have been demonstrated by Tom Basso where random entries combined with a trailing condition and solid money management principles can lead to sustainable long term returns.
5. Price following requires the systematic application of trading rules 24/7 where type 2 trading errors are regarded as serious errors (missing the white swan event). Given the unpredictable and relatively infrequent nature of these anomalous events, you cannot afford to miss them. As a result, breakout entries are preferred to catch them all as opposed to selective entries into a trend on retracement.
6. Price following requires divergent market conditions and relies on the principle that liquid markets occasionally and unpredictably diverge away from stationery predictive conditions. Their success is predicated on trending market conditions or market transitions that occasionally punctuate more stationery market conditions of equilibrium where markets are deemed to be more efficient. During these 'unusual times' the mass behaviour of the 'disturbed' price predictors becomes more coordinated through behavioural tendencies of fear and greed resulting in 'extended' price trends while this coordinated behaviour persists.
7. Price followers accept that liquid markets are generally 'efficient' in nature leading to random outcomes in general, however this philosophy predates on non-efficient periods of disturbed equilibrium when 'real' trending anomalies exist attributed to collective 'herd' behaviour of dominant market participants.
8. The sustainability of this trading approach necessitates diversification given the unpredictable nature of the 'when' and relative infrequency of these unusual events. Furthermore diversification of uncorrelated return streams is critical to allow for the neutralisation of more 'efficient' market conditions by dampening random outcomes. Diversification amplifies the signal to noise ratio of uncorrelated superimposed return streams. In other words....by superimposing return streams through diversification, the impacts of random outcome are lessened by destructive interference of random signals.
9. Drawdowns with this style of approach are persistent (as most of the time you are in one) but take considerable time to build during unfavourable (non-trending) market conditions where losses are many BUT SMALL....and quickly evaporate with favorable market conditions as winners can be LARGE.
10. These techniques have volatile equity curves over their lifetimes given the long periods that may arise between favorable divergent market conditions but are far more robust and long lasting than their 'predictive cousins'. As counter-intuitive as it sounds, a volatile equity curve is a characteristic associated with strategies that do not warehouse risk and is fundamental to robustness.
11. This style of trading requires far less adaption in general design principles over time as they simply follow price with an asymmetrically configured simple system designed to take advantage of market transitions.
12. The Pwin% of these styles range between 20% - 40% hence most of the time you are wrong....however the Reward:Risk ratio is typically >1.5 allowing for positive expectancy over the long term.
13. This style of trading is difficult to stick to as it is counter-intuitive to our psychology to let profits run and cut losses short. Furthermore the continual wrestling with being in drawdown make this a very difficult technique to accept given our human biases. This is what makes the edge in this style of technique so long lasting and why arbitrage is so persistent.
14. This approach is considered to be a wealth building approach that is long term in nature. A regular cashflow can never be predicted but this approach relies on the Law of Large Numbers combined with a slight positive expectancy and an emphasis on capital preservation.
15. This style of trading adopts the mantra that 'history may not repeat...but it does rhyme'.

Predictors

Predictors are more certain about future expectations and operate off the principle that complex systems such as our financial markets exhibit repeatable patterns or behaviour than what a Gaussian distribution would imply. Under this general principle, the application of a repetitive trading system that responds to repeated price behaviour will take advantage of any arbitrage present in this repeatable event. This philosophy assumes that price reaching a future target or expectation is more prevalent than what a random outcome would deliver. For example based on recent history of price action , price is considered to be overbought or oversold and hence revert back to an estimated historic mean or expectation. Predictors are characterised by techniques such as mean reversion systems, price action techniques, TA traders, grid trading styles, martingale styles and fundamental investment techniques.

As a result, this style of system is characterised by the following broad criteria:

1. This philosophy is backwards looking in that recent history is regarded as a basis to project future returns. The recent past is representative of current market conditions where a repeating signal is likely to project into the future with a degree of certainty.
2. This type of system typically uses profit targets associated with where price is anticipated to move to in the near future, and has relatively wide stops or no stops based on the degree of certainty placed on the expectation for future price movement. The degree of confidence in the future prediction encourages this style of trader to give room for the strategy to breath in response to random price gyrations and results in an asymmetrical bounded profile with wide stops and tight profit targets. As a result the tendency is for these systems to possess negative skew. (many small wins with less frequent large losses).
3. This style of strategy is very successful while current market conditions persist......but fail when market conditions change/adapt (where the repetitive price signals no longer occur with the same frequency). As a result, this style of trading strategy has a finite shelf life of varying duration (while market conditions remain in force). The success in trading these styles relies on the ability of the trader to detect new repetitive anomalies to replace those strategies where arbitrage no longer exists and to prevent significant capital deterioration with strategies that no longer work. In other words, success is couched in terms of the traders ability to adapt to new forms of arbitrage with altering market conditions and success in determining when to 'turn off' under performing strategies.
4. In this style of system the entries are far more important than the exits. Alpha is generated by the ability of the trader to identify overbought/oversold conditions which are anticipated to revert to an estimated future price. Sniper entries of precision are required. This style of system predates on the arbitrage present in the leptokurtic peak of the market return distribution as opposed to the 'fat tail' of the distribution. The alpha lies in the vast number of successful small wins (predictive ability) that surpass the large losses accompanying the negatively skewed return profile. Time based stops or profit targets tend to work well with this style of strategy.
5. Prediction requires the selective application of trading rules where type 2 trading errors are regarded as insignificant errors (as another frequent opportunity will present itself). Given the predictable nature of these signals, you can afford to miss them and wait for the next signal. For example, those that wait for retracement entries into a trend are regarded as predictive traders.
6. Prediction requires convergent market conditions and relies on the principle that liquid markets tend to exhibit prolonged periods of stability (equilibrium) where predictable (repetitive) patterns emerge. Their success is predicated on relatively stationery market conditions where markets are deemed to be more efficient and the participant mix and activity lead to repeatable price behaviour.
7. Predictors accept that liquid markets can occasionally be divergent in nature where existing models no longer work ......but predate on the extended periods of market equilibrium when persistent anomalies exist for an unknown period of time. During periods of prolonged market stability, predictive techniques can be very successful.....but during market instability, the negative skew quickly leads to risk of ruin unless unsuccessful strategies and identified quickly and turned off.
8. The sustainability of this trading approach necessitates concentration as opposed to diversification. Each liquid market possesses it's own characteristic predictive signature during stable market regimes. A tailored approach is therefore required to trade each particular liquid market. Diversification across liquid markets with the same strategy is typically unsuccessful.
9. Drawdowns with this style of approach are limited while stable market conditions persist but quickly arise during divergent market conditions given the negative skew of these system styles and take a long time to recover.
10. These techniques have less volatile equity curves over their far shorter lifetimes. As market conditions change and arbitrage of price patterns are ephemeral in nature, the use by date of this style of strategy is very limited compared to price following styles. A fairly straight linear equity curve can be said to effectively warehouse risk....as it is representative of only a single market condition or does not truly reflect the unrealised equity curve of the strategy. Inherent to every robust equity curve is the need for volatility which is representative of the fact that market conditions change over time. The reason why this style of system has fairly linear equity curves is that the system has only been applied to a single market condition. Over a greater cross-section of market conditions, a stationery predictive solution quickly departs from linear ascension into risk of ruin.
11. This style of trading requires regular adaption in general design principles over time with changing market conditions and the ability to determine when strategies are no longer working. This leads to intense strategy hopping over time in response to seeking new arbitrage opportunities as old opportunities wither.
12. The Pwin% of these styles range above 60% hence most of the time you are right....however the Reward:Risk ratio is typically <1.0 as losses tend to be larger than winners.
13. This style of trading is easy to stick to as you are more right than wrong and profit taking is encouraged. During periods of stable market condition where price action is more repetitive than random action, equity curves are far less volatile than their price following cousins, but when conditions change can quickly lead to risk of ruin. Despite the appeal of this style of strategy they have a sting in their tail over the long term. The arbitrage with this style of opportunity is more fleeting in nature and your success if couched in your ability to adapt and your understanding of when to turn off under-performing systems that no longer work.
14. This approach is considered to be a short term cash flow generation exercise as opposed to a long term wealth generator. A regular cashflow is estimated over periods of predictable regime....but as a long term wealth building exercise, fortunes can widely vary and is based on your ability to successfully adapt to changing market conditions.
15. This style of trading adopts the mantra that 'history repeats'.

So which philosophy floats your boat? As you can see, the underlying philosophy of how the markets work significantly shapes the way a trader attempts to tackle them.

Cheers

C

I have worked on Price following as well as price prediction.

I chose Brexit to trade and compare the returns. Symbol: GJ

Price following: I demotraded on MT4 through an EA which entered trades based on fixed strength measurement . 2 pip per tick+min 4 symbols triggered both buys and sells within a few seconds with me being a mute spectator.

Trading started on 21 Jan and lasted till March 31 when I had the opportunity to take profit (Balance) and quit. However, as part of the testing process I continued and the profit (Balance) mark hit again on May 10 after a drawdown of initial equity 18% and absolute drawdown of 42% of balance equity.

How many trades were won?
Won 552 out of 602 trades
92% win rate
8% loss rate
Daily Pips gain average: 147 based on active trading of 50 days. 32 days of trading with drawdown .
Profit Factor: 2.74
Average Win: 15.79 pips
Average Loss: 27.07 pips
Lots traded: 127.92 for 50 days or 2.56 lots per day
Average frequency of trades: 12 trades a day
Average Trade length: 2 days
Commissions plus Interest fee: 30% of gains made because of trades remaining locked in drawdown .
Goal of Yearly target of making $50,000 profit from a capital of $20,000: 19% done in 82 days

Price Prediction trade conducted on Interactive Brokers live and I don't have the kind of detailed statistics that are provided by journals like mhfxbook. If you know of any journal site like myfxbook that can provide free of cost statistics on trading conducted on Interactive Brokers, kindly let me know.
Whatever statistics I have I am reproducing here:



[attach]



Returns in Price following system (hybrid) were quite superior : 44% in 82 days
Returns in Price prediction (manual) were subdued: 32% in 82 days

I would like to pursue Price Following system (hybrid) and copy your way of diversified trading by selecting symbols which can balance my drawdown,

How should I proceed?

Which symbols of 28 pairs should I select so that my drawdown remains contained?
GBPJPY is my favoured trading symbol. It consists of two anchor currencies (Major being USD) and has strong mean-reversion tendancy.

Which of the other majors should I choose to diversify and what should be the considerations?
EUR
SFR
AUD
NZD
CAD
USD

I will be grateful if you could guide me. Thank you.

I personally believe that the selection of symbols is critical for any EA to work. 50% to 60% of battle is won if symbols are chosen correctly.
I have trained myself more as a risk manager than trader largely because I have been trading currency options (OTC) and now future fx options since 1984. I am mostly a seller than a buyer and have to settle for limited returns.
I started as a news trader in 2002 and that started my journey in spot fx. However, I don't like spot fx because I am not able to achieve any consistency and have to look for momntum. In a way, this aspect of spot fx is the reason I like to remain fx option seller.
But now I feel if I can speculate by way of buying of options, it will be more rewarding. FX spot experience has equipped me somewhat with timing experience which can better be employed for buying of options. Options futures has only two symbols Eur and JPy which are liquid and worth trading. Others in a way are untradable (for selling) unless prediction is used for directional plays.

I'm definitely gonna read the whole post... however I don't think you can avoid predicting/anticipating.. unless you gamble of course.


hmmm these anomalies happened in the past.. right ? random entries or not you predict that it will continue to exhibit fat tails in the future, while in fact the market might become 100% efficient.

note that predict doesn't mean expect.. that's another thing !! I use predictive models BECAUSE of uncertain.. otherwise I would use mathematical models instead of statistical.

also you still measuring the average volatility to determine the SL..



Anyways.. I respect your view. Cheers mate.

Wow S you are nailing it. Those stats are amazing :-)

Based on the stats, it looks like you system might be a convergent one with a 92% win rate and 8% loss rate. This is totally different to mine where I struggle to achieve a 50% win rate. Most of my divergent systems fall into the 30%-40% win rate which is a trait of trend following.

Not sure what system you are trading, but it appears to be significantly different.

With regards to your issue with MyFXBook and Interactive Brokers, you might find that FXBlue accepts IB accounts. I am not sure but it is worth checking out. I use FXBlue and it is a great free service to track live or demo accounts for most broker accounts using MT4. It also applies to other platforms as well so you may be lucky :-)

If I am right in assuming that your strategies apply convergent principles (eg. mean reversion etc.), then I agree with you that markets (symbols) each have different characteristics and you need to restrict your trading to those that exhibit the repeatable pattern you are after. Diversification doesn't work for convergent strategies as there is not a one size fits all approach through convergence to trading the markets. If you are a price follower trading divergence then the principle is applied to any liquid market.

Given I trade divergence, then you will find me trading most FX markets. As unhelpful as it sounds, you are going to have to test it out on your markets and find which are better suited to your strategy's approach as you actually need to ensure that your strategy is curve fit to most recent market conditions.

Of the majors, crosses and spot metals in the FX space, the markets that have delivered the most joy for me as a trend follower over the past 20 years from backtests are: EURUSD, GBPJPY, GBPUSD, EURJPY, AUDNZD, CADJPY, XAUUSD, XAGUSD, EURCAD, GBPAUD, AUDJPY, EURNZD.

Cheers mate :-)

Damn you H. You are right.....however let's try and save some face. :-)

Yes.....in applying models about how the market behaves, we do in a sense all predict the future. You are also right in your statement that unless there is a real edge to be obtained in the markets through adopting a predictive postulate or theory, then we are all just gambling. So for a trader or investor that assumes they are not gambling or trading a random distribution, the model that they apply must have a 'predictive' philosophy embedded in them.

Good pick up.......however the technique we apply might be predictive or not in relation to the value of current price and that was where I was going with that post. Does our technique predict a different price tomorrow, or does our technique simply follow price with no assumption about tomorrow.

With price following we assume that current price is always right so we simply follow it like a shadow with our technique lagging a small distance behind at all times. We trade in the same direction as current price. Examples include trend following techniques and momentum breakout techniques.

With predictive techniques we take a trade opportunity with the assumption that current price is overvalued or undervalued and our prediction is in our assumption of where we think future price should be. We therefore take the contrary direction to where price is currently in our trade entry technique. Examples include mean reverting techniques, value investing techniques, catching trend turning points, retracement entries into trend, grid trading and martingale variants.

Good to see you are keeping me honest.

Cheers C

Hi C, my predictive philosophy is based on assuming "error" in valuation by the auction market activity causing temporary over/under-valuation of the asset.

The model assumes price deviates up to certain calculated max stddev "error" where it more often than not reverts back to it's fair value and original divergent state.
https://www.forexfactory.com/showthr...3#post12381783

Nice mate. I can see you are harvesting from both divergent and convergent models. That's is probably the optimal approach to harvesting alpha. I am a bit lazier than you but I am playing around with some data mining to supplement the divergent models so this in a way is adding a touch of convergence to divergence.. I luv your philosophy....it makes lots of sense :-)

your willingness to embrace different perspectives amazes me. that's why I enjoy reading your posts... not becasue I'm looking for the best trading strategy or approach, but for someone who just want to have a nice conversation, regardless of being right or wrong.

only idiots see black and white.


I understand that your approach is probably the least predictive and the most flexible.. as it doesn't care about targets.. while mine tries to find the optimal ones that work in the long term..we'll see, I opened about 100 trades and I'm not losing..

That hits the nail on the head. We are very alike H....not in technique but mindset :-)

The best any of us have are simply models that attempt to mimic the reality. The models get better over time as they are put to progressively more rigorous tests but they are never complete. They just are applicable to a progressively wider domain of enquiry. It is exactly the same for the pursuit of science. There never is any truth statements where the observer (participant) is embedded in a complex system and cannot step outside the complex system with a fictitious gods-eye view.

We need to continuously learn new things to keep at the frontier of this ever increasing boundary of knowledge.....hence we cannot ever be dogmatic or certain about our knowledge. It will only ever be a cup half full...and we can always learn new things. That's why I accept all points of view and demand to see any problem from a variety of different perspectives. In looking at things from a variety of different perspectives, you may be able to unify these array of apparent differing ideas to realise they are simply different sides of the same coin..... and with a light-bulb epiphany peer even deeper into the puzzle by reaching a new and wider level of understanding.

Thank you for suggestion. FXblue informed me last year that IB does not provide any access to their platform without the customer's agreement and IB having done due-dilligence of the service provider.
I trade convergent systems which need momentum oxygen. Obviously, consisetent returns can't be achieved. Sometimes, I have to take a break of up to 4 months to resume trading. My intention of diversification is to fill these 4 months. As a respected system designer, I am looking up to you for whatever guidance you can provide. I am a firm believer of entering trades through an EA. I will try to get an EA coded taking your guidance into account.

I must admit S....that while once I was a discretionary trader....I personally will never return to that space. It is essential to my philosophy that I have a roadmap to guide me into the future and have a technology I can pass onto my kin. For that reason, I am now a passionate systematic trader. Keep in touch with this thread mate as down the track there might be some ideas within it that help your journey. We are travelling a similar path :-)