Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
I am a big fan of quantum theory, and have often wondered if observation has an effect on outcome at the micro-scale. This will be interesting to test.
For an RNG, I'd suggest a mersenne twister.
Thoughts on implementing a trailing stop instead of a target?
Care to expand on "merits of stops and money management"?
Blargh there was something else but it's too late. Going to be a fun london open.
P.S. lulz from the good ole days of T2W (hard to believe there were any!) How not to make money trading the markets
P.P.S. There is an edge in that thread if anyone cares to look, nobody has ever mentioned it to me, but then again, it's probably too small to interest them.
so i have been extensively manually testing this approach on a realistic sim and it has a positive expectancy.
I have been trying to find the coding for tradstation or MT4 but i guess i will just have to make a strategy.
so the whole idea that makes this approach a positive winner is the 1/2 off at 1:1 and remainder at 2:1 reward to risk. dont touch the stop. very very simple. easy to code as well.
so far with coms factored in at $4 R/T it has an expectancy of $6.3 per trade.
this definitely should be looked into further... especially if a system and be implemented to change to 50% winners.... the expectancy can jump to $25 or so.
It is indeed simple, but even simple things need to be understood.
I know that I can be mean, but it is my vocation to stop all varieties of nonsense.
The experiment cannot have a positive expectancy by design.
The expectancy is at best zero before slippage and commissions, it is negative after slippage and commission.
@DavidHP: it is difficult to draw any conclusions on money management from an approach that does not have a positive expectancy. The objectives of money management are
-> to understand trading related risks
-> to understand the likelyhood of drawdowns
-> to calculate position size in order too obtain maximum growth within an acceptable framework of risk
However, if your expectancy is negative, the optimal position size is zero. There is nothing to be discussed.