Menu
Sister Sites

Options

Bookmark Thread

First Page First Unread Last Page Last Post

Print Thread

Similar Threads

VennD - Any Pairs - Any Style - Any Time 740 replies

Is there any one who could recommend me any LongTerm strategy 24 replies

Does anyone using MB Trading broker? What is the minumum trade size you can trade? 2 replies

Anyone experienced better results with a true ECN broker? 3 replies

Can anyone share Buy-Sell-Close scripts to use as a hotkey without using F9 option? 5 replies

Is it true that anyone can succeed using any strategy?

Quoting Razzle
A random entry has every chance of getting on the right or wrong size of a large move in a trending market. When that happens, you can cut the winner short, or let it run to end. You can cut the loser short, or allow it to grow into a very large loss. Trade management is the important variable rather than the entry.
If you have the ability to know when to cut a trade short, and when to let it run, then you obviously have some tools that tell you the likely direction of the market. Why not use those tools for your entry, instead of relying on a random one?

In other words, anyone that uses a random entry only does so because they have no way of telling which way the market will move, and therefore have no way of knowing when to let a trade run and when to cut it short.
Quoting Custos
yeah and that is where I disagree. Trade management alone won't make a system profitable. The entries are equally important.
I disagree with that - in theory trade management could make a random entry system profitable, but it's strictly theoretical. Any trader that is so good at managing open trades can easily use those same skills to improve his entries, and only does himself a disservice by using random entries. Random entries are great as a thought experiment, but it's silly to discuss its use in reality.
Quoting fierceman
If you have the ability to know when to cut a trade short, and when to let it run, then you obviously have some tools that tell you the likely direction of the market. Why not use those tools for your entry, instead of relying on a random one?

In other words, anyone that uses a random entry only does so because they have no way of telling which way the market will move, and therefore have no way of knowing when to let a trade run and when to cut it short.
A person who uses random entry because he is not able to trade using a logical systematic approach will lose.

Also, no profitable trader would use random entries in practice. But the fact that random entries can be made profitable does help discover some market characteristics which can be used to further refine the trading approach.
Quoting fierceman
I disagree with that - in theory trade management could make a random entry system profitable, but it's strictly theoretical. Any trader that is so good at managing open trades can easily use those same skills to improve his entries, and only does himself a disservice by using random entries. Random entries are great as a thought experiment, but it's silly to discuss its use in reality.
I couldn't have summarized it better.
I really don't understand how random trades can ever be profitable. It's insane to believe that with 50% win and 50% loss chance over any number of random entires one can ever even break-even with spread an unavoidable expense . Yes, there would be temporary profits and temporary losses, but at the end of the day, loss will be equal to amount paid as spread.
The Thief of Wall Street
Quoting Chicky
I really don't understand how random trades can ever be profitable. It's insane to believe that with 50% win and 50% loss chance over any number of random entires one can ever even break-even with spread an unavoidable expense . Yes, there would be temporary profits and temporary losses, but at the end of the day, loss will be equal to amount paid as spread.
You are equating random entry with a 50% win and a 50% loss chance. That is not so. Look at my argument a few posts back about there being two profitable systems, one signalling long and another signalling short at the same time.

If all aspects of your system are random, then yes, you will have a 50/50 chance and that system will lose because of the spread.
Quoting Eklavya
You are equating random entry with a 50% win and a 50% loss chance. That is not so. Look at my argument a few posts back about there being two profitable systems, one signalling long and another signalling short at the same time.

If all aspects of your system are random, then yes, you will have a 50/50 chance and that system will lose because of the spread.
Random trades are random trades. It doesn't matter whats is your r/r ratio 1:1000 or 1000:1 or any other.

Yes I am equating random entries with 50% win chance and 50% loss chance because this is what it is and nothing else. Random entries cannot produce anything but 50% win or 50% loss chance.
The Thief of Wall Street
Quoting Chicky
Random trades are random trades. It doesn't matter whats is your r/r ratio 1:1000 or 1000:1 or any other.

Yes I am equating random entries with 50% win chance and 50% loss chance because this is what it is and nothing else. Random entries cannot produce anything but 50% win or 50% loss chance.
this assumes: random trade = random entry. This is 100% true if the exit (stop/target) is predetermined at entry time and not changed anytime later. But the market supplies new data after the entry; you can adjust the exit according to them, with some methodological edge. That's what the random entry advocates mean with 'profiting via trade management'. I think everything has been said and the debate is misunderstanding in point of view and semantics.
MarginTrader All Time Return: -2.4%
Quoting MaryJane
this assumes: random trade = random entry. This is 100% true if the exit (stop/target) is predetermined at entry time and not changed anytime later. But the market supplies new data after the entry; you can adjust the exit according to them, with some methodological edge. That's what the random entry advocates mean with 'profiting via trade management'. I think everything has been said and the debate is misunderstanding in point of view and semantics.
Absolutely correct.
Quoting Chicky
Yes I am equating random entries with 50% win chance and 50% loss chance because this is what it is and nothing else. Random entries cannot produce anything but 50% win or 50% loss chance.
Lets flip this argument in its head,

You could say the same about any entry method. Lets assume you have a great entry method, it always yields at least 30 pips within an hour, and has a MAE of -5.

All you have to do is wait, and you get 30 pips.

Now change the exit rule to hold and close after 24 hours, gain or loss, and what do you get. Thats right, 50/50. You just destroyed a holy grail by changing one simple parameter. Your perfect entry is now no better than 50/50. You didnt change the entry, but your results are now break even minus spread.

By the same argument you can change one parameter in the random entry system, and take it from a break even minus spread, to a perfectly tradable system.

At some point, you might want to change the entry too, or maybe you wouldnt depending on circumstances.
Quoting Chicky
I really don't understand how random trades can ever be profitable. It's insane to believe that with 50% win and 50% loss chance over any number of random entires one can ever even break-even with spread an unavoidable expense . Yes, there would be temporary profits and temporary losses, but at the end of the day, loss will be equal to amount paid as spread.

It is simple. If you have 10000 people all trading random etnries, odds are that some of them will be winners. And yes you will know about them from media as they are soooo skilled..... normal distribution.
Quoting Razzle
Lets flip this argument in its head,

You could say the same about any entry method. Lets assume you have a great entry method, it always yields at least 30 pips within an hour, and has a MAE of -5.

All you have to do is wait, and you get 30 pips.

Now change the exit rule to hold and close after 24 hours, gain or loss, and what do you get. Thats right, 50/50. You just destroyed a holy grail by changing one simple parameter. Your perfect entry is now no better than 50/50. You didnt change the entry, but your results are now break even minus...
Try to get the point. In your above example, what you are doing is not random. You have a method. The only difference is that you are not entering at a particular predetermined point but still following your method. What I talked about is random trades. This is basic maths for fifth graders.
The Thief of Wall Street
Quoting MaryJane
this assumes: random trade = random entry. This is 100% true if the exit (stop/target) is predetermined at entry time and not changed anytime later. But the market supplies new data after the entry; you can adjust the exit according to them, with some methodological edge. That's what the random entry advocates mean with 'profiting via trade management'. I think everything has been said and the debate is misunderstanding in point of view and semantics.
How a bloody trade can be random if one is considering the market data and pa movement?

The problem here is that people are over-emphasizing "random entry". Following their logic one way of trade management will be to randomly short 1 lot and then long 1000 lots based on market data, then claim random entries work.

ps - According to their random entry system, the first trade that is random has 50% chance and all subsequent entries are not random.
The Thief of Wall Street
Quoting Chicky
Try to get the point. In your above example, what you are doing is not random. You have a method. The only difference is that you are not entering at a particular predetermined point but still following your method. What I talked about is random trades. This is basic maths for fifth graders.
The point is, your perfect entry method, has just been reduced to an entry method that yields no better than a 50/50 outcome when used as part of a "different" system.

Noone is arguing that a random entry has an edge, because it does not. We are simply stating a fact that a system that utilises random enties as one component element of that system can have positive expectancy.

To be random, entry, exit, direction, and position sizing would all need to be random. Give a half decent trader control over any one of those elements, and they'll achieve superior returns.
Quoting Razzle
The point is, your perfect entry method, has just been reduced to an entry method that yields no better than a 50/50 outcome when used as part of a "different" system.

Noone is arguing that a random entry has an edge, because it does not. We are simply stating a fact that a system that utilises random enties as one component element of that system can have positive expectancy.

To be random, entry, exit, direction, and position sizing would all need to be random. Give a half decent trader control over any one of those elements, and they'll...
Why a random entry in first place? Why not to wait until market reaches a point where one would otherwise make second entry?

The random entry is a gamble, no matter if it is later used in a method to adjust the position size of subsequent trades. It is just that lots represented by that first random trade were blindly made and are pure punting.
The Thief of Wall Street
Quoting Razzle
To be random, entry, exit, direction, and position sizing would all need to be random. Give a half decent trader control over any one of those elements, and they'll achieve superior returns.
..or this guy must be insane, a liar, or just a silly joker (his profile and website cites the definition and reasons behind doing such an exercise).. also lot of stuff for interested coin toss traders here, lol.
Quoting Chicky
ps - According to their random entry system, the first trade that is random has 50% chance and all subsequent entries are not random.
i think everyone was talking one trade with one random entry and one non-random exit; no scaling in/out. Something the way RR is training (not trading I guess). Nobody has been st*pid enough so far to advocate totally random trades.
Quoting Chicky
The random entry is a gamble, no matter if it is later used in a method to adjust the position size of subsequent trades.
ditto, so it must have been a misunderstanding (as supposed).
Quoting Chicky
Why a random entry in first place?
Of course it has nothing to do with practical trading.. LVG has provided the (meanwhile banned) OP with the ultimate answer to his question.. the debate about random stuff is pointless.
MarginTrader All Time Return: -2.4%
Quoting dvc11
Hi guys, is it true that all the strategies that's available around internet (free or paid) is possible to achieve great success?

As in, if 100 people are given the same strategy, there may be one who will succeed by using the given strategy?

Is it not so much of the strategy but it is the person using the strategy?


Or does strategy does makes a difference in trading? Without a good strategy is it impossible to succeed as a trader? Is it possible to eliminate or minimize psychology issues during trading if one has a good strategy?

What...
Not all of that, if you want a profitable one, you gotta create it, do not find it anywhere!
People with enough experiences can suits themselves to any trading conditions they met, experienced trader could modify and put some improvisations to their trading strategy, hence they are like can trade any strategy in the world but improvise that, not a pure written in the stone strategy that being feed to them.
I think it is difficult to find a strategy that does well over a 3 year backtest with 99% modelling accuracy. I have coded a number of EAs based on the strategies in this forum, backtested them extensively, and unfortunately, most do not pass this criteria.

However, there are a handful of strategies here that are profitable, and it is only through the hard work of coding and backtesting (and forward testing) that we are able find out which ones.

My EAs trade continuously for me now through a VPS and are quite successful. I guess with the right EAs anyone can succeed, but it is not easy to find a successful strategy in the first place.
this egg and chicken debates really help no one.the unprofitable gambler is usually cocksure that he's right.
the profitable trader just remains silent other than argue with vanity.
wo-yoy! wo-yoy! wo-yoy! wo-yoi! wo-yoy-yoy-yoy!
Quoting Forex Hero
I think it is difficult to find a strategy that does well over a 3 year backtest with 99% modelling accuracy. I have coded a number of EAs based on the strategies in this forum, backtested them extensively, and unfortunately, most do not pass this criteria.

However, there are a handful of strategies here that are profitable, and it is only through the hard work of coding and backtesting (and forward testing) that we are able find out which ones.

My EAs trade continuously for me now through a VPS and are quite successful. I guess with the right...
FF rules do not allow this person here.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...RlRwINtVH1AliW
The Thief of Wall Street
0 traders viewing now