High & Low 8 Hours (GBP/JPY)

Quoting billbss

Disliked

No. The math doesn't work.
You WILL lose 6 in a row if you trade any length of time at all.
You WILL lose 10 in a row, at some point.

Pure martingale as well as the one you put up violate the essential rules of risk management.

Never increase your bet, unless:

1. Your equity has increased

and/or

2. Your expectation of winning has increased.

Anytime you go bigger after a loss, you are violating number 1.

Martingales, in all their forms, are based upon the due fallacy- the idea that after a loss, or a series of losses, you are due for a win. You aren't. The market does not keep track of your wins and losses and strive to keep them balanced.

If you have a legitimate 50% system, after 10 losses, the odds of winning the next trade is still 50%.

Ignored

Quoting dagoods

Disliked

this is gambling but if u really want to do this (i am former gambler) you should use martingale only as a hedge...for example trading on 2:1 with this system of 50 sl and 100 tp as follows

trade1. = trade 10 minilots = lose on account of 100000 = (sl of 50 = - 500 = 99500 balance

trade2 = 11.6 minilots (if u expect no more than 6 losses in a row) you can round down to 11.5 minilots = lose 99500 -575 = 98925

trade 3 = 19 minilots = loss = -950 = 97975

trade 4 = 22 minilots = loss = -1100 = 97025

trade 5 = 36 minilots = loss = -1800 = 95225

trade 6 = 60 minilots = loss = 92225

trade 7 = 100 minilots = WIN (FINALLY YEAH ) = 102225!!!!
so this is your downside if you never lose more than 6 in a row (big if)


you can reset these levels for worst case scenario of losing 10 in a row lets say as well..... its easy just do the math.... ( i would recomend you do this)

e.g trade 1 is 10 minilots

trade 2 is 11 minilots

trade 3 is 12.1

trade 4 = 13.31 minilots etc. etc... (still only 1.3 standard lots) you see how much better this is than risking your entire account!


or course if you keep losing more than 6 (or 10 if u follow the 10 in a row martingale hedge system i advocate above)in a row you are completely screwed due to exponentially biggger risks on trades lol but hey

this is the right way to do martingale! I would be interested to know how this would play out in a back test (or forward test even better) as well....


remember gamblers goal is to use techniques to minimize losses and maximize gains by having an edge...here the edge is that you are risking 50 to get 100 or you have 2:1 odds in your favor if the system is 50% win ratio then u should always make money in theory..... someone please make me an ea of this without bugs and teach me how to implemnt the ea! = could be holy grailish!

Ignored

Quote

Disliked

have you ever flipped a coin 1000 times and got tails 1000 timesin a row? there is validity to both sides of the arguement

Quoting billbss

Disliked

No. The math doesn't work.
You WILL lose 6 in a row if you trade any length of time at all.
You WILL lose 10 in a row, at some point.

Pure martingale as well as the one you put up violate the essential rules of risk management.

Never increase your bet, unless:

1. Your equity has increased

and/or

2. Your expectation of winning has increased.

Anytime you go bigger after a loss, you are violating number 1.

Martingales, in all their forms, are based upon the due fallacy- the idea that after a loss, or a series of losses, you are due for a win. You aren't. The market does not keep track of your wins and losses and strive to keep them balanced.

If you have a legitimate 50% system, after 10 losses, the odds of winning the next trade is still 50%.

Ignored

Quoting billbss

Disliked

Nope, I haven't, but that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

If the coin is not rigged and the toss is not rigged, and I toss 10 straight heads, what is the probability that the next toss will be tails?

Ignored

Quoting dagoods

Disliked

WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF LOSING 10 IN A ROW? what about 100 in a row? the sytem can work in theory if u had an unlimited amount of capital which of course nobody but big institutions do

Ignored

Quote

Disliked

the sytem can work in theory if u had an unlimited amount of capital which of course nobody but big institutions do

Quoting dagoods

Disliked

again i agree with u that it is risky and gambling pure and simple you are BETTING that you won't hit 10 losses in a row if you do you take a big loss....but how much is that loss = it should be only what you are willing to lose...first thing to calculate is the odds of losing 10 in a row and what your loss would be then you know your risk....(always a good idea)....just for devils advocate sake.... what is the worst case scenario in backtesting over the entire hisotry of the forex? then what is possible = 30 losses in a row? then you can design a low risk martingale system....but remember i was responding to the guy who is risking his entire accout after 6 losses (very bad MM) and giving him a better alternative thats all..he seems helk bent on doing it anyway naybe he has money to burn.... but opinions are like buttocks everybody has one

Ignored

Quoting billbss

Disliked

The odds of losing x number in a row depend on the win rate.

At a 50% win rate (which this system does not have) you will lose 10 in a row 1 time in 1000 trials.
That doesn't mean you have to make 1000 trades to hit a 10 loss streak. The streak could start tomorrow.
It means that the mathematical expectation over the long run is 1 in 1000.

If you have a 40% win rate, you'll lose 10 in a row 6 times in 1000.



The system will not work for that very reason. No one has an unlimited amount of capital.

Ignored

Quoting billbss

Disliked

The practical reason that martingale isn't any good, is in the implementation.

To size your initial bet has to be too small because you must allow for the possible parlay after a series of losses.

Even if you don't hit a streak that will tap you out(you will), you wind up making far less that if you had risked a fixed 2% of equity on each trade.

Ignored

Quoting billbss

Disliked

The practical reason that martingale isn't any good, is in the implementation.

The size of your initial bet has to be too small because you must allow for the possible parlay after a series of losses.

Even if you don't hit a streak that will tap you out(you will), you wind up making far less that if you had risked a fixed 2% of equity on each trade.

Ignored

Quoting dagoods

Disliked

dont seem to have an experts folder how do i locate experts folder and put ea there? tried copy and paste tried locating file in start/programs etc but cant find experts folder? thanks in advance

Ignored

Quoting dagoods

Disliked

but can u see the validity of risking 1% equity and then risking 1.1% equity and then 1.15% lets say and then 1.25 etc. as a calculated risk in order to (hopefully) offest losse as a hedge...or how about this if and only if you lose 3 ina row then increase you lot from 2% equity to 2.1% etc. or something that makes sense???? it seems workable if you can run the numbers in a logical mathmatical way on the assumption that statistaclly ove time you will not have a set of 10 3 consecutive losses in a row

Ignored

Quoting billbss

Disliked

You can get a Monte Carlo simulator for Excel that will take any bet sizing method you can imagine and make test runs on it.

It will run as many 1000 run sets as you want to wait for.

It'll report to you the worst run, best run and the most likely run results.

Any form of martingale that you can devise will not beat a fixed % of equity.

The best run of the martingale will be worse that the worst fixed % run.

Ignored

Quoting tdion

Disliked

The system doesn't have a win expectancy. I can't believe you guys drank the Koolaid on this.... what would you have said from 2001-2006?

Most likely, "I wouldn't touch this strategy with a 10 foot pole." Suddenly, a few months of positive results has this thread buzzing..... What is the reason for its success, other than "the charts told me to trade..." What is the real world reason this system works? Why won't it fail? There is no logical answer... it is.... as they say.... fooled by randomness.

So what is the win expectancy? It depends on GBPJPY's daily fluctuation.... which will change without warning. All your analysis on the past few months will be null and void.

2008 is around the corner.... are you guys willing to blow an account based on 1 year of good trades vs. 6 years of AWFUL results? Call me cynical, but facts are facts.

Ignored

Quoting tdion

Disliked

The system doesn't have a win expectancy. I can't believe you guys drank the Koolaid on this.... what would you have said from 2001-2006?

Most likely, "I wouldn't touch this strategy with a 10 foot pole." Suddenly, a few months of positive results has this thread buzzing..... What is the reason for its success, other than "the charts told me to trade..." What is the real world reason this system works? Why won't it fail? There is no logical answer... it is.... as they say.... fooled by randomness.

So what is the win expectancy? It depends on GBPJPY's daily fluctuation.... which will change without warning. All your analysis on the past few months will be null and void.

2008 is around the corner.... are you guys willing to blow an account based on 1 year of good trades vs. 6 years of AWFUL results? Call me cynical, but facts are facts.


EDIT) My hat is off to Nicotina for coming up with this strategy. I don't want to make it sound like the system will fail. It could go on for quite some time. But then again, it could go sour any day. All I am saying is, I don't see a logical reason for it to continue working.

Ignored

Quoting tjsun80

Disliked

Hi all,

May someone publish out the high low quantity ?

Ignored