As the lights go by so too do the shadows move

Sister Sites

The Automated Trading Championship 2007 Is Over! 0 replies

Automated Trading Championship 2007: New Challenge! 33 replies

Automated Trading Championship 2007 5 replies

2006 Automated Trading Championship 49 replies

Practice Makes Perfect Trading Championship Leaderboard 6 replies

- Joined Aug 2011 | Status: Member | 4,494 Posts

Disliked{quote} Matt, I was reading when risk goes 1, 2, 4 as the 3 sequence, then the zero is the reset. If risk goes 1,2,4,8 isn't that 4 levels instead of 3?Ignored

Figured it. I use the same value for 0 as I do for 1. I just use the 0 to represent a finished sequence of +3 trades.

As the lights go by so too do the shadows move

- Joined Aug 2011 | Status: Member | 4,494 Posts

I have put the Trading Account balance in. I think it lags behind one step to the "rand win/loss" (just cos I like to confuse) so look at the previous result.

The coloured cells signify when it is interacting with the Principle account.

The coloured cells signify when it is interacting with the Principle account.

Attached File

Capital Weightlifting Equity3.xlsx 476 KB | 145 downloads

As the lights go by so too do the shadows move

- Joined Aug 2011 | Status: Member | 4,494 Posts

DislikedThe excel that PipMeUp has posted is indeed a reverse martingale system and is different from what Matts Micro has posted. The main difference is that when there is a loss, reverse martingale will have you start back at the original risk while Matts Micro will have you back at your last risk. Back when Rags2Riches was 1st active with his thread, i tested this exact same money management. When compared to a win 2 lose 1 50% win rate compounding system i found that this system did perform slightly better. But of course, the trade off is larger draw...Ignored

I did do some rough tests with just 2 levels up and I found the risk out weighed the reward, this system really kicks-in with the 3rd level. On top of that it enables a bit of room to bounce around a bit with a loss or two. I believe (yet to prove) that with a system like this then a losing system with a little worse winning % could actually turn the tide to become a winning system.

Cheers,

Matt.

As the lights go by so too do the shadows move

- Joined Aug 2011 | Status: Member | 4,494 Posts

I was just looking over the spread sheet results. It one area I was looking at, the system failed to get +3 net wins within 59 trades. It dropped just one level and soon after managed to get a series of 2 +3 wins. In those 2 wins it managed to recapture the Level and just short of its previous balance. 25 trades later it managed to get another +3 win and smashed above the first balance. It took some serious green afterwards but soon it took another 56 trades before it was able to get +3 trades and still it managed to bounce back just as hard. I don't think it will take me 59 trades to get to +3.

As the lights go by so too do the shadows move

- Joined Aug 2011 | Status: Member | 4,494 Posts

I found another error in my formula and this hurt a little. When I am withdrawing profits from the Trading account after a successful +3 net trades I leave 10% of the current Level in the account. In the old formula I was withdrawing the full 80%. I have now reduced that to 70%. This is a 10% hit which hurts. The system still out performs most of the time but it also increases the chances of bottoming out.

The system can also be used for a normal 1% risk. In this case, in the P/L column the formula needs to adjusted to 1% (risk) and 14% (reward minus 2% for the next trades deposit). In just about every comparison my system beats a normal flat 1% system.

I think 3% risk (42% reward) looks the most stable with very good results.

Just to show how I figure R:R again:

3% is always kept in the account for a margin buffer zone.

+3% deposit

=6%

*2 (trade 1)

=12

*2 (trade 2)

=24

*2 (trade 3)

=48%

-6% that includes the 3% buffer and 3% deposit for the next trading run.

=42% returns transferred back to the Principal Account.

To change the risk% levels for your appetite just go to the P/L formula, use the above formula to figure your R:R then copy paste the formula down the column.

As FXEZ said, to refresh the chart with new results just use F9.

The system can also be used for a normal 1% risk. In this case, in the P/L column the formula needs to adjusted to 1% (risk) and 14% (reward minus 2% for the next trades deposit). In just about every comparison my system beats a normal flat 1% system.

I think 3% risk (42% reward) looks the most stable with very good results.

Just to show how I figure R:R again:

3% is always kept in the account for a margin buffer zone.

+3% deposit

=6%

*2 (trade 1)

=12

*2 (trade 2)

=24

*2 (trade 3)

=48%

-6% that includes the 3% buffer and 3% deposit for the next trading run.

=42% returns transferred back to the Principal Account.

To change the risk% levels for your appetite just go to the P/L formula, use the above formula to figure your R:R then copy paste the formula down the column.

As FXEZ said, to refresh the chart with new results just use F9.

Attached File

Capital Weightlifting 3 percent.xlsx 480 KB | 143 downloads

As the lights go by so too do the shadows move

Disliked{quote} Err, I think you have jumped the gun, this is not a trading strategy, it is just one part, the Money Management part, if you do not have sound price analysis you will still end up -ive. But yes you can use it for whatever type of trading you desire.Ignored

how to manage trades in Binary options when..

WIN = 70-80%

LOSS = 0

Will it work for BO???

- Joined Aug 2011 | Status: Member | 4,494 Posts

I have entered "Risk %" So all you have to do is enter your risk and the sheet will do the rest.

Attached File

Capital Weightlifting 3.xlsx 477 KB | 144 downloads

As the lights go by so too do the shadows move

- | Joined Jun 2011 | Status: Mmeri | 872 Posts

DislikedI found another error in my formula and this hurt a little. When I am withdrawing profits from the Trading account after a successful +3 net trades I leave 10% of the current Level in the account. In the old formula I was withdrawing the full 80%. I have now reduced that to 70%. This is a 10% hit which hurts. The system still out performs most of the time but it also increases the chances of bottoming out. The system can also be used for a normal 1% risk. In this case, in the P/L column the formula needs to adjusted to 1% (risk) and 14% (reward...Ignored

Question about some stuff in the excel.

P/L and Net Win columns. Consider that as you trade, your account sometimes doubles. If you lost the trade with $20 in the trading account (0 wins), shouldn't your loss be $10 (5% of level) @ 2:1 Reward Risk? Currently it's $6 (3% of level) which is equivalent to 3.33:1 Reward risk.

Principle Account, Trading Account, and P/L columns. When you get the net 3 wins, you show a P/L of 42% of the Level ($84 @ Level 200), and trading account value of $160. On the very next line the Principle Account goes up $84 and the trading account goes back to $20. 160 - 84 - 20 = 56. What happens to the left over $56?

Net Wins Column and Trading Accounts Column. Notice how in the picture below the boxed areas show a $20 with a 1 and a $10 with a 1.

You can also see the example of the missing $56 in the picture as well as the $6 loss on a $20 account and a $20 gain on a $20 account.

One last thing, you shouldn't compare the gains made from a MM Strat that risks 3% per trade vs a MM strat that risks 1% on the same set of trades. The gains will always be better on 3% risk.

I put together an Excel using a single account that trades from the original level of the account and does not compound. Check it out.

Win Rate, Starting Balance, % Risk per Trade, RR (Reward:Risk), and Commission are adjustable (btw i misspelled Commission in the excel )

Attached File

3 t.xlsx 42 KB | 203 downloads

- Joined Aug 2011 | Status: Member | 4,494 Posts

Disliked{quote} Hey Matt Question about some stuff in the excel. P/L and Net Win columns. Consider that as you trade, your account sometimes doubles. If you lost the trade with $20 in the trading account (0 wins), shouldn't your loss be $10 (5% of level) @ 2:1 Reward Risk? Currently it's $6 (3% of level) which is equivalent to 3.33:1 Reward risk. Principle Account, Trading Account, and P/L columns. When you get the net 3 wins, you show a P/L of 42% of the Level ($84 @ Level 200), and trading account value of $160. On the very next line the Principle Account...Ignored

Thanks for pointing this out I have missed a part for adjustment of the RISK in the P/L column. So the risk is set to 3% but it's not currently adjusting the Trading account (only the Principal account). So the P/L and the Principal Acc. are showing the correct result but it is the Trading account that I need to adjust. The graphing however shows the true result.

The 1% chart was done by PipMeUp. I think it was put there for a comparison of volatility more than anything. If my system crashes and burns the 1% is still trudging along making it's 1% profits.

I'll check out your sheet, thanks

I will have a deeper look at the error and get back to you.

Cheers,

Matt.

Edit: err I think there is something really wrong with my maths....

As the lights go by so too do the shadows move

- Joined Aug 2011 | Status: Member | 4,494 Posts

Disliked{quote} Hey Matt Question about some stuff in the excel. P/L and Net Win columns. Consider that as you trade, your account sometimes doubles. If you lost the trade with $20 in the trading account (0 wins), shouldn't your loss be $10 (5% of level) @ 2:1 Reward Risk? Currently it's $6 (3% of level) which is equivalent to 3.33:1 Reward risk. Principle Account, Trading Account, and P/L columns. When you get the net 3 wins, you show a P/L of 42% of the Level ($84 @ Level 200), and trading account value of $160. On the very next line the Principle Account...Ignored

Here are the adjustments on the Trading Account column, which was the prob I think you were pointing at (missed the % adjustment originally). Now the Trading Acc. will build to the +3 wins and the P/L will manage the withdraw/deposit (minus the deposit for Trading Account to continuing trading). If you see any other glitches pls let me know.

If anyone has questions pls ask.

Cheers,

Matt.

Ps Lookin, I changed the Risk to 1% so it is a fair comparison (but risk can be changed to what ever you want).

Attached File

Capital Weightlifting 4.xlsx 440 KB | 153 downloads

As the lights go by so too do the shadows move

- | Joined Jun 2011 | Status: Mmeri | 872 Posts

Disliked{quote} Hey Lookin, Here are the adjustments on the Trading Account column, which was the prob I think you were pointing at (missed the % adjustment originally). Now the Trading Acc. will build to the +3 wins and the P/L will manage the withdraw/deposit (minus the deposit for Trading Account to continuing trading). If you see any other glitches pls let me know. If anyone has questions pls ask. Cheers, Matt. Ps Lookin, I changed the Risk to 1% so it is a fair comparison (but risk can be changed to what ever you want). {file}Ignored

Disliked{quote}Assuming there are no other errors in calculation, it definitely shows that 3t mm will out perform standard mm over timeIgnored

But i guess the minimum we have to do is accept the same max risk in both systems.

That means the same max % drawdown and the same max position size.

If we do that i am not sure that the 3t mm is the best performing...

- Joined Aug 2011 | Status: Member | 4,494 Posts

Disliked{quote} To compare the two systems is hard, maybe even impossible. But i guess the minimum we have to do is accept the same max risk in both systems. That means the same max % drawdown and the same max position size. If we do that i am not sure that the 3t mm is the best performing...Ignored

My system consistently makes at least 20% more than the straight 1% compounded MM system. About 95% of the time is will make more than the 1% and if it doesn't it is currently not far behind it. About 60% of the time profits are 100%+ of the gains of the straight 1% and about 35-40% of the time profits are a 1000%+.

Does my system have more volatility than the straight 1%? Of course it does. It is called making the money work. You don't want to invest 1 million dollars to make $100 so it's about looking for the best rewards in a safe environment.

As the lights go by so too do the shadows move

Thanks for the R2R MM implementation here.

I was looking it closer and found this is a simple reversal Martingale

with sequence 5%, 10%, 15% risk.

If you have 1000 USD on account, then you can take 30% profit with 12pip and 2,5 lot(EURUSD).

SL is 6 pips (it can be a hedge pending order).

If you trade in this way, you have enough margin to catch smaller movements (going to take 100 pips has more risk).

With regards,

SP.

- Joined Aug 2011 | Status: Member | 4,494 Posts

DislikedIgnored

The reverse Martingale was also brought up earlier but I haven't as of yet to had time to fully research it as I am unfamiliar with the system. The term Martingale always makes me nervous however as I have clear and defined stops. With my trades, even though I am doubling on each trade progressed I am only risking the previous trades profits, not the entire move up.

To quote Good Lookin in this post http://www.forexfactory.com/showthread.php?p=8492405#post8492405 "The main difference is that when there is a loss, reverse martingale will have you start back at the original risk while Matts Micro will have you back at your

I used to trade a system with tighter stops but have gone back to the larger trades (for this system) for more consistency. I generally use from 25-50 pip SL's (50-100 TP) depending on the market / conditions I am trading in. My 500:1 leverage helps with this.

If I have time over the weekend I will study the Reverse Martingale fully.

Cheers,

Matt.

As the lights go by so too do the shadows move

Disliked{quote} To quote Good Lookin in this post http://www.forexfactory.com/showthread.php?p=8492405#post8492405 "The main difference is that when there is a loss, reverse martingale will have you start back at the original risk while Matts Micro will have you back at your last risk."Ignored

http://www.casinoreviewsquad.com/bet...etting-system/

http://www.onlineblackjackformoney.o...etting-system/

Disliked{quote}I used to trade a system with tighter stops but have gone back to the larger trades (for this system) for more consistency. I generally use from 25-50 pip SL's (50-100 TP) depending on the market / conditions I am trading in. My 500:1 leverage helps with this. If I have time over the weekend I will study the Reverse Martingale fully. Cheers, Matt.Ignored

SP.

- Joined Aug 2011 | Status: Member | 4,494 Posts

Disliked{quote} Yes you are right, reverse martingale moves back to the first bet after lose. I think it is ok, because roulette or blackjack player is depending of house edge, in forex we can take the edge under own control.If you have series wins in casino, then there is possible to come out series of loses next, in that reason reversal martingale goes back to the first bet after lose. http://www.casinoreviewsquad.com/bet...etting-system/ http://www.onlineblackjackformoney.o...etting-system/...Ignored

I look for opportunities on all majors and keep an eye on quite a few of the minors for opportunities too. I use correlations for confirmations so I don't find watching so many pairs as difficult as I once would have. As an example of this, I have just entered long EU (using this system too) but there is potentially a good opportunity approaching (and also a confirmation of my current trade) on EG. It is currently challenging a falling 4hr TL and a break will be a good signal of confirmation. If the EG break fails however and a reversal pattern shows then it could be a signal for me to exit the EU trade early.

So to answer, I basically look over most until I see a reason to trade and then wait for an entry.

Cheers,

Matts.

As the lights go by so too do the shadows move

- Joined Aug 2011 | Status: Member | 4,494 Posts

I had a thought for a formula in the spreadsheet (updated version kept on P.1 introduction).

For the random counter (F column) I was wondering if it is possible to create an overall risk of same % but have a greater chance for the wins to be grouped together and obviously the losses grouped. Not necessarily a win followed by a win or a loss by a loss but a greater chance within a "zone".

I am not trying to rig the system in trying to do this but it is how the method was developed, as I mentioned in my introduction. Wins and losses (for me at least) tend to come in "trends". During market confidence my winnings out number my losses and vise-versa. You may say "Just don't trade during uncertainty," but often it's only uncertainty when people start scratching their heads with 3-4 failed trades and saying "Oh, the markets aren't going anywhere, there must be uncertainty," (fundamental reasons aside).

If anyone has a theory for the "RAND" operation of the spreadsheet pls let me know,

Thanks,

Matt.

For the random counter (F column) I was wondering if it is possible to create an overall risk of same % but have a greater chance for the wins to be grouped together and obviously the losses grouped. Not necessarily a win followed by a win or a loss by a loss but a greater chance within a "zone".

I am not trying to rig the system in trying to do this but it is how the method was developed, as I mentioned in my introduction. Wins and losses (for me at least) tend to come in "trends". During market confidence my winnings out number my losses and vise-versa. You may say "Just don't trade during uncertainty," but often it's only uncertainty when people start scratching their heads with 3-4 failed trades and saying "Oh, the markets aren't going anywhere, there must be uncertainty," (fundamental reasons aside).

If anyone has a theory for the "RAND" operation of the spreadsheet pls let me know,

Thanks,

Matt.

As the lights go by so too do the shadows move

DislikedIf anyone has a theory for the "RAND" operation of the spreadsheet pls let me know, Thanks, Matt.Ignored

https://support.office.com/en-us/art...0-021ea9f5be73

Disliked{quote} I don't understand. If the exact same trades are taken on the 1% setting I don't know how the comparison can be impossible?Ignored

That is why i say it is difficult, maybe even impossible to compare the two MM systems. It is not really a fair competition.