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)
The thread discussion got me more interested in analysis. Found a great resource for Free Stats Software.
As the market gives me plenty of time between my setups, this is something I plan to get more into. I spent my time in the stats class in university chatting up the pretty honey next to me... but I'm back, it's an interesting field.
You are never in the wrong place... but sometimes you are in the right place looking at things in the wrong way.
Here's a curve ball. What about blending strategies sequentially to adjust overall potential?
For example, trade a 1:1 60% accuracy system to grind out a weekly (or daily, or monthly or whatever) target and then switch to a much a higher risk:reward system with a trailing stop on the weekly gains to limit downside exposure.
This is a type of 'barbell' approach where you can (in theory) get exposure to asymetrical payoffs.
I am not seeing any advantage of following this path. I would continue to trade the system with the R-Multiple of 1 and the win rate of 60%.
The only reason to trade two different systems in parallel (not sequentially!) would be a negative correlation of their returns. In that case drawdowns should be reduced allowing for a higher leverage.
The only problem with this approach is that the negative correlation often turns positive in a flight-to-safety scenario, and the higher leverage does not make things better either. See the demise of Long Term Capital Management. I think that they traded non-correlated or weakly correlated strategies, which turned out to be positively correlated when the flight-to-safety event (Russia defaulting on bonds) occurred.
I guess my 'angle' on this is not purely maths based, but practical in how I can use it to trade better and that in my case incorporates my psychology. I do employ such a 'barbell' approach which panders to my split trading personality. Very safe most the time and then - after a line in the sand is crossed - very risky.
I think Paul Tudor Jones has said that after you have grinded out a 30 or 40% year you have earned the right to go for it and perhaps book a 100%+ year. From a psychological perspective this makes sense (or at least it does to me), as you will probably have needed to trade well to get to that level in the first place and will be well tunded in when you drop the hammer and increase risk and/or the targets.
So not to divert the OP's intention of the thread, I'll bow out.
I understand your position from a psychological point of view. George Soros called this going for the jugular .... What they probably meant is that once your have been profitable, it makes sense to increase size or to include trading strategies that may expose you to larger draw downs.
I do not think that this means necessarily switching to a different type of trade. You might simply build your position by pyramiding, once you have gained confidence, because the market has validated your strategy.
Trading short-term allows you to place more bets. Provided your strategy comes with an intrinsic edge (let's denote this with some fixed value called the expected mean of returns), Bernoulli's theorem states that the larger the number of bets, the closer the sample mean of returns approaches the expected mean. As such, you should experience a smaller deviation of the sample mean from the expected value for every fixed unit interval of time while your strategy is run. In more concrete wording, the more the number of bets, the smaller the deviation of your realized daily returns from the expected mean of daily returns that you should experience, and hence higher Sharpe ratio. It can be estimated that the maximum compounded growth rate attainable with your strategy varies with the square of your Sharpe ratio, an order of magnitude faster than losses from transaction costs. By this reasoning, quite the contrary, there is actually an absolute advantage in shorter time frames.
@artemiso: Brilliant post, you hit the nail on the head.
However, there is one minor glitch. Transaction costs do matter. If you trade ever smaller timeframes, transaction costs will outgrow the intrinsic edge, and you strategy will be making losses.
That said from your statement above and the knowledge that transaction costs will overcome the edge for very small timeframes, you may conclude that there is an OPTIMUM timeframe to trade.
Under optimum I understand the timeframe that allows you to attain the maximum compounded growth rate.
I have tried to give an example for the optimum frequency / targets in the thread "Risk of Ruin". You will probably like these posts:
Absolutely. The main limitation of the model in its current shape is
- that it only applies to Bernoulli distributions, that is trade setups where you either win X or you lose Y
- that some of the risks that cannot be quantified (changing markets, false …
The question is not obvious to answer, I need to make a lot of assumptions first.
(1) First of all the model relies on fixed-fractional betting. If you say I have a system doing 2,000 trades with an expectancy of $5, you assume that all those trades …
The key is understanding that the variance of return matters, and that you more easily achieve a better variance with a high win rate than with a high R-Multiple.