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)
It describes a system that she calls "A profitable system that is durable and robust based off random entries".
The rationale of the system is basically entering at random (long in an uptrend and short in a downtrend) with certain stops and target criteria - resulting in a profitable system.
It sounds interesting and something I'd like to consider for me in the future.
That's what she describes as what she's seeking, anyway.
They're not really "random entries", if you read the detail.
The ideas behind the methods presented there are still probably far too random in their outcomes to be of much value to independent traders. When they're successful, they're successful only over a percentage of markets in any given year.
Many of her subsidiary points (e.g. trailing stops making performance deteriorate, overall) are clearly both right and provable, though.
Well, they are random in that you don't wait to be in a general area of support/resistance, or wait for a retracement... you simply enter the market at random but with the idea of going with the general trend.
As for the success rate, the slides state
This system was run 100 times on each market with randomly generated trade entries each time. The time period tested was from 1995 to 2005 on 22 domestic futures markets that included currencies, bonds, index futures, metals, agricultural products, and softs.
In the next slide it is further stated
The system was profitable between 92 – 100% of the time on all markets with the exception of live cows and hogs, (which tend not to trend for extended periods of time), as well as silver and natural gas – (probably due to its extreme spiky nature in recent years). All index futures were profitable 100% of the time over 100 randomly generated runs over 10 years of daily data!
I think that this slide covers her key message - its all about the exit ( for this experiment she ran), which she cautions as "not the way to trade". I like Linda as she uses some of the techniques I relate to such as chart patterns.
---
"the larger the target the lower the percentage win rate."
This would definitely be true if the target range to stop range is increased.
Of course a systems profitability is not just a measure of win rate.
With multiple targets and multiple contracts a system can be tailored to reduce contracts can lessor targets (getting a higher win rate on smaller amounts for these)
and on condition set x
with a smaller percentage of contracts use the larger targets - probability moving the stop to BE on these
Condition set x could include
Target 1 is met ADR has increased
Mom has increased
no S/R is blocking
and
placement in H-L range is not > 80% (uptrend) <20% downtrend
I have designed systems on a similar principal that worked great and produced strong results.
The key is this: If you take away any variability in your entry system being overly bias and wrong (Meaning you call short on 80% of the trades and the market is going long that day), and you give equal chances to both sides (long and short = 50% / 50% split) then you remove any possibility that the actual direction of the market is the force driving your success or failure.
By doing this, then the success or failure of your system becomes solely a function of of your exit system. When testing new exit systems I always start with this type of entry system because it removes any possible edge that may be baked into my results due to the entry system. There are two types that I use:
1. Random entries: Code enclosed: int rando = rnd.Next(1, 10); // creates a number between 1 and 10
#region FirstTrade
if (SystemPerformance.AllTrades.Count <1)
In theory after N number of trades you should average out to 50% long trades and 50% short trades but due to the random nature of it, you may end up with pockets of congestion with a high bias on a given day to one side or the other. But over time it will average out.
2. The alternating entries: This one works better to immediately get a 50% / 50% split. You just create a variable to hold the position of the last trade and on the next trade call it. If the variable was long, then go short or vice versa.
Now, once you have this type of entry system in hand here is what you will statistically end up with.
A: You will get on the right side of the action just as much as the wrong side because over time flipping will average out and you will get a flat edge. Though I will say using limit orders with getcurrent (Bid / Ask) may put you in the back of the queue and get you down 1 tick from a price passthrough trade around 50% of the time. If you want a slightly better edge on entries try coming off of close + /- 1 to 2 ticks. Fewer trades, but you will start flat more often.
B: The success of your system will be solely based on how well you can create an intelligent exit system. I won't give too much away here on this thread but for those interested I may post more about exit systems with a definitive edge on my journal.