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)
Could you post one example which explains, how you have adapted Optimal F to comply with larger drawdowns?
For me the position sizing that results from Optimal F is still too aggressive, so if you discovered with Optimal F that your position sizing was too large, what leverage did you use before?
Can you help answer these questions from other members on NexusFi?
i have a roulette system that works if you have enough money and go to a table with no limits,its a red/black system,first you wait until 3 reds or black hit in a row,then you bet on the oppisite,if you win you take your money and wait for 3 of the same colors again and bet on the oppisite,if you lose you triple your money,so say you bet 20 bucks and lose then you bet 60 bucks,if you lose you bet 180 if you lose bet 540,on and on you get the pic,but you better have some cash and make sure your on a no limit table...sharky
was just thinking and no i havent tried but i wonder if that would work on trading if you have a loseing trade triple your money an the next entry?...sharky
this does not work. You are a victim of the Gambler's Fallacy. There is no system in the world that will work with an even Roulette wheel. Only if you spot an uneven wheel, you may have an edge.
Tripling your money is a Martingaleapproach. This approach will typically get you many small wins and in the end a final large loss, which will exceed the aggregate wins.
This would be progressive betting. If you increase your bet size after a losing trade, this is known as a Martingale strategy. It is one of the commonest mistakes of traders and known as averaging down.
Martingale approaches can work, if you have a trading approach, where the outcome of two consecutive trades are negatively correlated. However, it is not easy to show that this is the case.
When averaging down, you have a highly positive correlation of the trades. This can be understood, if you redefine the trades. This is what you would do
-> enter a position with contract size n
-> one the first position has lost a certain amount you add n contracts to your position
Now this is the same, as if
-> you had exited the first trade taking a loss
-> entering a new trade with contract size 2*n
If the old and the new trade are positively correlated, this is not a good decision. If there is a negative correlation, this strategy may give you an edge. However, this behavior is typically driven by loss aversion and not by correlation analysis and is known as one of the fastest roads to disaster.
Never average down any of your losses. Be a man and take the first loss.
I used to do something similar, the odds of getting 4 red or black in a row are lower than a straight 3. I used to eyeball several tables at once waiting for them to come up.
Also, I found a site where you can calculate binomial probability distribution, as well as other types of cumulative probabilities - Statrek.com
"The primary thing required to obtain what you want from life, is simply the will to pursue it, and the faith to believe it is possible." - Author Unknown
"The ability to maintain discipline and stick to the rules is the hallmark of the experienced successful trader" - Curtis Faith
Here is the problem with the roulette strategy. Even if there were such a thing as a casino that didn't limit bets you are effectively playing a game with a 47% chance of winning. That means you have a realistic probablilty of, at some stage, getting 16 losers in a row. See below for how much your last bet would be if you started with $20. Even if you could fund that bet your money would be better spent owning a casino rather than playing in one.
Your best bet is to never go to a casino. You would be better off buyng the occasional deep out of the money option like Nasim Taleb
When you go to a casino you have to go with a budget and you can't go over the budget. Its a weekend in Vegas kind of scenario. You go with $5k or $10k or whatever amount you're comfortable with that you can spend. If you can lose it without worrying too much you're fine. Just play and at the end of the weekend you either win or lose. If you do this many times over your lifetime, you're going to be in the negative.