• Home
  • Forums
  • Trades
  • News
  • Calendar
  • Market
  • Brokers
  • Login
  • Join
  • User/Email: Password:
  • 2:32am
Menu
  • Forums
  • Trades
  • News
  • Calendar
  • Market
  • Brokers
  • Login
  • Join
  • 2:32am
Sister Sites
  • Metals Mine
  • Energy EXCH
  • Crypto Craft

Options

Bookmark Thread

First Page First Unread Last Page Last Post

Print Thread

Similar Threads

End Game Trading System 15 replies

Got into a discussion with someone, he says forex is inherently a losing game 46 replies

Grid Trading System Discussion 5 replies

Discussion on "Zero-sum Game" Article 7 replies

Mechanical System - Emotions Discussion 7 replies

  • Trading Discussion
  • /
  • Reply to Thread
  • Subscribe
  • 32
Attachments: Trading Game System Discussion
Exit Attachments
Tags: Trading Game System Discussion
Cancel

Trading Game System Discussion

  • Last Post
  •  
  • 1 2Page 34 5
  • 1 2Page 34 5
  •  
  • Post #41
  • Quote
  • Oct 16, 2012 8:19am Oct 16, 2012 8:19am
  •  ~bull.bear~
  • Joined Sep 2012 | Status: Aim Consistent Income | 791 Posts
This is another example to show you with the RR ratio 2:1

Example
A trader goes long - 3 lots of EUR/USD at 1.1950. All stop levels are placed at 1.1935 and plans to take partial profits at 1.1970, 1.1980 and finally 1.1990.

If the trade goes in the intended direction, the profits he will make are as follows:
1st lot: +20 pips from 1.1950 to 1.1970
2nd lot: +30 pips from 1.1950 to 1.1980
3rd lot: +40 pips from 1.1950 to 1.1990

The overall result would be 90 pips.

If the market goes against our trader and gets stopped out, we will have the following results:
-15 pips x 3 (lots) = -45 pips

As already showed you, with such a RR ratio 2:1, we only need a system accuracy of 38% to break even; with a system accuracy of around 50% we will make good money.

We need to make something clear though, when scaling out this way, we are actually going against two basic principles: “the trend is your friend” and “let the profits run and keep your losses short.” When a trade goes in our favor, it means that we probably made a good decision; we probably caught a good trend. By taking partial profits we are limiting our overall gain.

On the example above, our trader could have made 120 pips if he had set all take profit orders at 40 pips, this would be a 2.67:1 RR that will definitely put the odds in his favor.

To be continue....
 
 
  • Post #42
  • Quote
  • Oct 16, 2012 8:31am Oct 16, 2012 8:31am
  •  ~bull.bear~
  • Joined Sep 2012 | Status: Aim Consistent Income | 791 Posts
Another important factor to consider is that as the trade moves in our favor, the chances are greater that we will win that trade, and as the trade moves against us, the greater the chances are that the trade will fail.

Wouldn’t it be more logical to scale out the other way? When the chances of losing our trade are greater? So that if that particular trade resulted in a loss, we lose less money?

Example
A trader goes long the AUS/USD at 0.7420 on two lots. All take profit orders are placed at 0.7480, the stop loss level from the first lot is placed at 0.7405 and the stop loss of the second lot is placed at 0.7390.

If the trade goes in our trader’s favor
1st lot: +60 pips from 0.7420 to 0.7480
2nd lot: +60 pips from 0.7420 to 0.7480

The overall outcome is a gain of 120 pips.

If the trade goes against our trader
1st lot: -15 pips from 0.7420 to 0.7405
2nd lot: -30 pips from 0.7420 to 0.7390

The overall result would be a loss of 45 pips.

This would give us a RR ratio of 2.67:1 again.

*************************************************************************************
When we win a trade we want to be all in so we can make the most of it. Moreover, when the market goes against us, we want to be partially in, so we lose the least we can. When the market moves in our favor the trade has a higher probability of success, so it is not a good idea to take partial profits or to scale out, on the other hand, when the market moves against us, the probability of success gets smaller so it is a good idea to scale out. This way we are letting our profits run and keeping our losses short.
 
1
  • Post #43
  • Quote
  • Oct 16, 2012 6:56pm Oct 16, 2012 6:56pm
  •  Dick Clark
  • | Joined Feb 2011 | Status: Member | 39 Posts
Hi bull.bear,

I agree. Speculators wants to increase risk as we are right regarding a move and decrease risk when we are wrong. I like your suggestion as to how to scale out of trades, when the trade goes wrong.

Scaling out of wrong position is simple, since you just need stop losses in place for whatever measured risk the speculator is taking. However, pyramid-in takes a bit more creativity since a speculator is moving his average price closer to current price, and as such, a small move against the trader can cost him plenty. The increase in risk when trade goes in the black is not efficient.

There are other ways to increase risk without moving your average price, but this is something that a speculator needs to develop in the design of the trading strategy. This is where this common sense analysis of money management proves the most challenging.

Where does it lay - with the money managment? or the design of the system?

What comes first, the chicken or the egg?
 
 
  • Post #44
  • Quote
  • Oct 17, 2012 11:16am Oct 17, 2012 11:16am
  •  ~bull.bear~
  • Joined Sep 2012 | Status: Aim Consistent Income | 791 Posts
Hi Dick Clark!

Each MM systems has it own pros and cons. So some MM systems are doing better in one circumstance. And some are suitable for unique instrument, such as mutual fund is suitable for pyramiding and cost averaging. As a matter of fact, this depends on trader's objective and trading strategy,for looking their comfortable systems with the risk.

Of course if traders could optimize both their strategy and MM system (Backtesting, re-adjustment, find the defects, do it again and again and maximize all the potential). Then sure be the best.
 
 
  • Post #45
  • Quote
  • Oct 18, 2012 8:19pm Oct 18, 2012 8:19pm
  •  Dick Clark
  • | Joined Feb 2011 | Status: Member | 39 Posts
Quoting ~bull.bear~
Disliked
Hi Dick Clark!

Each MM systems has it own pros and cons. So some MM systems are doing better in one circumstance. And some are suitable for unique instrument, such as mutual fund is suitable for pyramiding and cost averaging. As a matter of fact, this depends on trader's objective and trading strategy,for looking their comfortable systems with the risk.

Of course if traders could optimize both their strategy and MM system (Backtesting, re-adjustment, find the defects, do it again and again and maximize all the potential). Then sure be the...
Ignored
Hi bull.bear,

I studied two strategies that define when the odds are in your favor, and scale in into a position. In other words, if instead of placing your full position at one price, the speculator would scale in, then you are increasing risk as the position goes your way.

These strategies are The Turtle strategy, and Jesse Livermore. If you study those two strategies, you may appreciate how important MM is to a strategy, and at the end the MM style that I prefer is just that - to increase risk when the odds are good, and well defined.

Since you have illustrated for us different types of MMs, how efficient each combination is, I think that your latest posts have concluded the investigation. I can't find any other MM structure more adequate for risk taking in the market.
 
 
  • Post #46
  • Quote
  • Oct 23, 2012 11:17am Oct 23, 2012 11:17am
  •  ~bull.bear~
  • Joined Sep 2012 | Status: Aim Consistent Income | 791 Posts
Hi Dick Clark!

Well, so far all the available MM systems have been illustrated. However, i would post my own unique systems soon. It is amazing that how long and short positions act together in one basket trading to minimize the risk taken for one trade. (Hedging meanwhile achieve it own target). I am surprise with the result of MM backtesting. So let check it out.
 
1
  • Post #47
  • Quote
  • Jan 6, 2013 7:54am Jan 6, 2013 7:54am
  •  joselopezde
  • | Joined Mar 2012 | Status: Member | 18 Posts
Good thread!!
 
 
  • Post #48
  • Quote
  • Edited 6:56am Jan 7, 2013 6:28am | Edited 6:56am
  •  ~bull.bear~
  • Joined Sep 2012 | Status: Aim Consistent Income | 791 Posts
Unique System: MS
This is my unique system and i name it as MS (Money Management System). I don't want to write so much here about how i develop these systems. So please take a look and understand yourself. Please be patient for the 5 MS systems.


The objective of MS
1. To prevent major drawdown especially for consecutive of losing
2. To compound the profit faster for consecutive of winning
3. To generate a consistent return for random winning and losing scenarios
4. This is not a portfolio system, so there is no any relation with diversification, allocation, hedging, and any portfolio model.


The 5 MS systems short briefing
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge

Name: MS System.jpg
Size: 223 KB


To be continue....
 
1
  • Post #49
  • Quote
  • Jan 7, 2013 6:52am Jan 7, 2013 6:52am
  •  ~bull.bear~
  • Joined Sep 2012 | Status: Aim Consistent Income | 791 Posts
Continue from Unique System: MS
These systems involve mathematics calculation. Before i continue further for the explanation, I need to post the formula here first.


Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge

Name: MS System Formula.jpg
Size: 86 KB



Capital
Capital = Contract x 1 Contract Value x Margin % x FX Conversion x Current FX Price
Z = CAMFP

Delta
Current Equity = Previous Equity + (Contract x Delta)
Delta = (Current Equity – Previous Equity) /Contract
D = (E0 – E1) / C

Min Game
Game = (Current Equity - Capital) / (Total Risk x (Contract / Min Size) x 1 Pips Value)
G = (E1-Z) / R*(C/S)*V
G = S (E1-Z) / RCV

Min Game Sizing/Contract
Game = (Current Equity - Capital) / (Total Risk in Pips x (Contract / Min Size) x 1 Pips Value)
G = S (E1-Z) / RCV
GRCV = S (E1 - CAMFP)
GRCV + SCAMFP = SE1
C (GRV + SCAMFP) = SE1
C = SE1 / (GRV+SAMFP)

Fixed Ratio Sizing Increment/Decrement
Current Equity = Previous Equity + (Contract x Delta)
Contract = (Current Equity - Previous Equity) / Delta
C = (E1 - E0) / D

Fixed Ratio Sizing Increment
Entry sizing = Contract
Entry sizing = C

Fixed Ratio Sizing Decrement
Entry sizing = Previous Contract - Contract
Entry sizing = C0 – C1

To be continue.....
 
 
  • Post #50
  • Quote
  • Jan 10, 2013 1:15am Jan 10, 2013 1:15am
  •  Alanamc
  • | Additional Username | Joined Dec 2012 | 249 Posts
Quoting ~bull.bear~
Disliked
Continue from Unique System: MS
These systems involve mathematics calculation. Before i continue further for the explanation, I need to post the formula here first.


Attachment 1111302


Capital
Capital = Contract x 1 Contract Value x Margin % x FX Conversion x Current FX Price
Z = CAMFP

Delta
Current Equity = Previous Equity + (Contract x Delta)
Delta = (Current Equity – Previous Equity) /Contract
D = (E0 – E1) / C

[color="blue"][b][u]Min...
Ignored

Very informative thread. Waiting for more info.
 
 
  • Post #51
  • Quote
  • Edited 5:49am Jan 19, 2013 5:32am | Edited 5:49am
  •  ~bull.bear~
  • Joined Sep 2012 | Status: Aim Consistent Income | 791 Posts
Continue from Unique System: MS

Task A – The test of consecutive winning and recovery ability for all systems
Deposit: $500
Capital per game : $30
Min lot size per game: 0.1
Risk per game: $10
Reward per game: $20
Min game : 5
Delta : 100
Position per game: Either Long or Short


The table below illustrates analysis result
•Recover trades is total number of trades to be recovered back to its initial capital.
•Winning streak ratio is the consecutive winning ability to earn certain profit amounts.
Attached Image


System #MS01
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge

Name: MS01.jpg
Size: 311 KB



Result
A) Losing streak and recovery
Consecutive lose = 47 trades to blow up the account
Recovery= 12 trades to be recovered from equity $40 to $530

B) Winning Streak
Ratio = (Final Equity – Initial Equity) / Total trades
= (6500 – 500) / 24
= 250

To be continue.....
 
 
  • Post #52
  • Quote
  • Jan 19, 2013 5:54am Jan 19, 2013 5:54am
  •  ~bull.bear~
  • Joined Sep 2012 | Status: Aim Consistent Income | 791 Posts
System #MS02
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge

Name: MS02.jpg
Size: 250 KB


Attached Image


Result
A) Losing streak and recovery
Consecutive lose = 47 trades to blow up the account
Recovery= 24 trades to be recovered from equity $40 to $510

B) Winning Streak
Ratio = (Final Equity – Initial Equity) / Total trades
= (980 – 500) / 24
= 20

To be continue....
 
 
  • Post #53
  • Quote
  • Jan 19, 2013 5:57am Jan 19, 2013 5:57am
  •  ~bull.bear~
  • Joined Sep 2012 | Status: Aim Consistent Income | 791 Posts
System #MS03
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge

Name: MS03.jpg
Size: 291 KB


Result
A) Losing streak and recovery
Consecutive lose = 47 trades to blow up the account
Recovery= 8 trades to be recovered from equity $40 to $610

B) Winning Streak
Ratio = (Final Equity – Initial Equity) / Total trades
= (6500 – 500) / 24
= 250

To be continue...
 
 
  • Post #54
  • Quote
  • Jan 19, 2013 6:02am Jan 19, 2013 6:02am
  •  ~bull.bear~
  • Joined Sep 2012 | Status: Aim Consistent Income | 791 Posts
System #MS05/#MS06
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge

Name: MS05.jpg
Size: 291 KB


Attached Image


Result
A) Losing streak and recovery
Consecutive lose = 47 trades to blow up the account
Recovery= 8 trades to be recovered from equity $40 to $610

B) Winning Streak
Ratio = (Final Equity – Initial Equity) / Total trades
= (6040 – 500) / 24
= 231

To be continue...
 
1
  • Post #55
  • Quote
  • Jan 19, 2013 6:17am Jan 19, 2013 6:17am
  •  PipMeUp
  • Joined Aug 2011 | Status: Member | 1,305 Posts
Hi!

If I understand correctly, you increase the lot size after a winner and decrease it after a loser. If I'm correct, this is only good if you can prove that the trading system is highly autocorrelated with a persistent behaviour. I mean that statistically a winner calls a winner and a loser calls a loser. If the trades are independent the result will be random.

Can you please upload the excel sheet you use to build the examples. I'd like to see what happens when the outcome is win-loss-win-loss-win-loss-win-loss-win-loss-win-loss-... With a 1:1 RRR I feel like it won't fly.

Thanks
No greed. No fear. Just maths.
 
 
  • Post #56
  • Quote
  • Jan 19, 2013 7:21am Jan 19, 2013 7:21am
  •  hanover
  • Joined Sep 2006 | Status: ... | 8,092 Posts
Quoting PipMeUp
Disliked
Hi!

If I understand correctly, you increase the lot size after a winner and decrease it after a loser. If I'm correct, this is only good if you can prove that the trading system is highly autocorrelated with a persistent behaviour. I mean that statistically a winner calls a winner and a loser calls a loser. If the trades are independent the result will be random.

Can you please upload the excel sheet you use to build the examples. I'd like to see what happens when the outcome is win-loss-win-loss-win-loss-win-loss-win-loss-win-loss-... With a...
Ignored
PipMeUp,

I've reached much the same conclusion as you, from my own research into MMs. If all events are completely independent (no autocorrelation), then no matter what MM system is used, the net expectancy will always be 0. I haven't seen a formal mathematical proof of this, but I've yet to find a MM system that — if equal weight is assigned to every possible distribution of outcomes — disproves this supposition, either.

Gaining an edge from MM ultimately comes down to having bigger sizes on events whose outcome is more likely to be favorable, either through statistically demonstrable autocorrelation, or a proven +EV gameplay model (which equates to entries and exits, in the case of trading the markets).

I'd love to be proved wrong, because if MM in itself could provide an edge, profitable trading would be significantly easier. And it would mean that casino games like roulette could potentially be beaten, also.

David
 
1
  • Post #57
  • Quote
  • Jan 19, 2013 7:56am Jan 19, 2013 7:56am
  •  nubcake
  • Joined Oct 2009 | Status: >Apocalypto< for Deputy PM | 2,918 Posts
Quoting hanover
Disliked
the net expectancy will always be 0
Ignored
just cuz i'm always so helpful and never ever nit-picky and an ass-hat, i think you mean the expectancy will be less than 1. not zero. zero would mean there was never a round / hand / game / whatever iteration where the player could win in that moment.


Quote
Disliked
I haven't seen a formal mathematical proof of this, but I've yet to find a MM system that — if equal weight is assigned to every possible distribution of outcomes — disproves this supposition, either.
i would think that the concept of expectancy IS the proof. being able to weigh all of the inputs and come to some final expectancy value is the maths that proves or disproves a winning edge. until some 'genius' comes along and shows all of us plebs that the inputs are wrong or incomplete or whatever, then current expectancy calculations stand. mix and match expectancy with profit factor... which ever one makes the most sense since i'm too tired to think straight.

it's been awhile since i've come across it, but i recall someone somewhere sometime mentioning someone who had some whizz-bang coin-flip demonstration that showed some way of being profitable. might have been r raygun that mentioned it. i don't think i ever found this demonstration, but merely more references elsewhere to it.
 
 
  • Post #58
  • Quote
  • Jan 19, 2013 8:34am Jan 19, 2013 8:34am
  •  PipMeUp
  • Joined Aug 2011 | Status: Member | 1,305 Posts
Quoting hanover
Disliked
If all events are completely independent (no autocorrelation), then no matter what MM system is used, the net expectancy will always be 0.
Ignored
What do you mean by this? Do you mean that whatever the MM, if the expectancy of a system is 0, it cannot be made positive? If that's what you mean, the proof is rather easy.
Or do you mean that if the trades are independent you can never win? Here I doubt --mainly because markets trend--. Dr. Van K Tharp showed that entering randomly can be profitable.

Quoting hanover
Disliked
if equal weight is assigned to every possible distribution of outcomes
Ignored
That's exactly the reason why I'd like see the result of the W-L-W-L-W-L... sequence
=> The winner increases the bet size, the loser loses more than just won. The next winner is under-sized so can't recover but it increases the bet size again making the next loser to lose more and so on. The same way an idiot could turn my example profitable with a Martingale which only works with a well choosen subset of the possible outcomes.
No greed. No fear. Just maths.
 
 
  • Post #59
  • Quote
  • Jan 19, 2013 8:53am Jan 19, 2013 8:53am
  •  PipMeUp
  • Joined Aug 2011 | Status: Member | 1,305 Posts
Quoting hanover
Disliked
I'd love to be proved wrong, because if MM in itself could provide an edge, profitable trading would be significantly easier. And it would mean that casino games like roulette could potentially be beaten, also. David
Ignored
But just in case you find it... they added a green zero!
No greed. No fear. Just maths.
 
 
  • Post #60
  • Quote
  • Jan 19, 2013 10:41am Jan 19, 2013 10:41am
  •  sloanman
  • Joined Oct 2009 | Status: Member | 106 Posts
Quoting PipMeUp
Disliked
But just in case you find it... they added a green zero!
Ignored
The spread (and negative roll) is the green zero in forex.

They got us coming and going.

I love your MM and when I'm not purposefully trading like a retard (i.e. completely over-leveraged) I use exactly that. Been working for five months now but have a lot of ground to make up.
 
 
  • Trading Discussion
  • /
  • Trading Game System Discussion
  • Reply to Thread
    • 1 2Page 34 5
    • 1 2Page 34 5
0 traders viewing now
  • More
Top of Page
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
About FF
  • Mission
  • Products
  • User Guide
  • Media Kit
  • Blog
  • Contact
FF Products
  • Forums
  • Trades
  • Calendar
  • News
  • Market
  • Brokers
  • Trade Explorer
FF Website
  • Homepage
  • Search
  • Members
  • Report a Bug
Follow FF
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

FF Sister Sites:

  • Metals Mine
  • Energy EXCH
  • Crypto Craft

Forex Factory® is a brand of Fair Economy, Inc.

Terms of Service / ©2023