- Joined Feb 2009 | Status: Half in the Bag | 17,826 Posts
Money Can't Buy Happiness. Poverty Can't Buy SHIT! You Choose!
Big Loss Martingale Strategy! 12 replies
Martingale, Anti-martingale, and Compounding 40 replies
Martingale, Reverse Martingale, Modified Martingale, Maths 1 reply
How to change this Martingale to Reverse Martingale ? 3 replies
Martingale vs. Non Martingale (Simplified RoR vs Profit) 1 reply
Disliked{quote} Only that coin toss 50/50 rule can't be applied to trading when you factor in broker commission.Ignored
Dislikedthe advantage that I see in Alembex is that , we are not adding to losers and the drawdown is much less than other (anti-martingale )systems.Ignored
DislikedAnd I believe that coupling this betting method with system that can generate 2 winners in a row in less trades will make the system more profitable .Ignored
DislikedWe would love to see and EA using this system and compare the result of the same EA with fixed betting ( % or fixed lot/$).Ignored
Dislikedyour blow-out is just a matter of time, it will happen sooner than later wich such a simple strategy ...Ignored
Disliked{quote} I see no advantage in using Alembex (or any other progressive pos sizing method) over flat betting, because -- as the math has demonstrated -- the long term expectancy is exactly the same. {quote} Yes it will, but if I found an entry/exit system "that can generate 2 winners in a row in less trades", then I would simply flat bet the system, because the long term expectancy is exactly the same, and the risk of ruin (by avoiding Alembex's higher average pos sizes) is exponentially less. {quote} I am convinced by what the math has demonstrated,...Ignored
Disliked{quote} Say for example that we will cut the trade size in half after a loss and keep the same betting tha Alembex use after a winner ( Cum +1). will that make a difference , will that reduce the DD?Ignored
Disliked{quote} Say for example that we will cut the trade size in half after a loss and keep the same betting tha Alembex use after a winner ( Cum +1). will that make a difference , will that reduce the DD?Ignored
Disliked{quote} It makes no difference. Overall expectancy remains 0, exactly as I expected. See XLS in attached ZIP. Here is s statement that will probably shock many people, but I believe that it's 100% true: You can take absolutely ANY entry/exit system, and then no matter what sizing system you apply to it, then (providing each trade is an independent event, i.e. there is no causal link between trades), the total long term expectancy will be exactly the same as if you use consistent sizing (i.e. 1 unit for EVERY trade). If you think about it, this is...Ignored
Disliked{quote} Ollaya, The reason I'm sure that the 'blue statement' is correct, is that I've performed the same mathematical analysis on hundreds of different betting systems. I attached 2 additional XLSs in post #106. You can vary their parameter settings to test many different systems, i.e. rules for changing the bet sizes following a win, or a loss, and when to quit from a sequence. In all cases the total expectancy is zero. However, one of the XLSs allows you to change the probability of a win, following a loss. That means that consecutive trials...Ignored
Disliked{quote} If the statement in blue is true, here are some obvious implications: Any 'edge' comes entirely from entries and exits. Pos sizing can not provide an edge. It can not turn a negative expectancy entry/exit system into a winning one. And no pos sizing system can make an existing positive expectancy entry/exit system more profitable than it already is. Experimenting with different pos sizing ideas is a complete waste of time. I'm not going to spend the rest of my life testing all of these possibilities.{file}...Ignored
Disliked{quote} It makes no difference. Overall expectancy remains 0, exactly as I expected. See XLS in attached ZIP. Here is s statement that will probably shock many people, but I believe that it's 100% true: You can take absolutely ANY entry/exit system, and then no matter what sizing system you apply to it, then (providing each trade is an independent event, i.e. there is no causal link between trades), the total long term expectancy will be exactly the same as if you use consistent sizing (i.e. 1 unit for EVERY trade). If you think about it, this is...Ignored
QuoteDislikedIn these cases you could justify increasing your pos size following a loss, because the probability of the next trade being a winner has increased.