Dark Theme
Light Theme
Trading Articles
Article Categories
Article Tools
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)
Updated April 26, 2014
Top Posters
looks_one
kevinkdog
with 237 posts (640 thanks)
looks_two
Big Mike
with 34 posts (61 thanks)
looks_3
Pedro40
with 27 posts (19 thanks)
looks_4
deaddog
with 20 posts (12 thanks)
Best Posters
looks_one
Silver Dragon
with 3 thanks per post
looks_two
kevinkdog
with 2.7 thanks per post
looks_3
Big Mike
with 1.8 thanks per post
looks_4
Pedro40
with 0.7 thanks per post
trending_up
123,662 views
thumb_up
886 thanks given
group
60 followers
forum
460 posts
attach_file
138 attachments
July 4th, 2013, 07:56 AM
Posts: 3,668 since Jul 2012
Thanks Given: 1,893
Thanks Received: 7,378
Big Mike
Hey, it is no joke.
Here is the fact: in order to be a good trader, you have to be great at losing!
Even if you do fail this combine the thread is still full of extremely valuable information. And thanks to the research and number crunching you've done, you already knew your chances were less than a "sure thing" to pass the combine.
So I don't want you to get discouraged. First, you are helping many others by showing them "the other side" of algorithmic trading. And I don't mean the losing side at all --- what I mean is the research and analysis side that is outside and completely disparate from any kind of code to buy and sell. This is the side that so often is completely disregarded by most algo traders, and frankly the side that makes all the difference in my opinion.
So keep going, don't get discouraged, and good luck!
Mike
I'm glad you said that, because you've brought up some good points . I'm actually not discouraged - the raw system still shows a lot of promise (see below) - but I am disappointed in the Combine results.
I've been talking to a few Combine winners offline, and there is a lot of good info in winning Combines. Winning can be a more inspirational story than losing!
Can you help answer these questions from other members on NexusFi?
Best Threads (Most Thanked) in the last 7 days on NexusFi
July 4th, 2013, 08:31 AM
Posts: 3,668 since Jul 2012
Thanks Given: 1,893
Thanks Received: 7,378
Here is an interesting chart, one that I have not shown before.
2 equity curves. Same exact trades in both (except for one trade)...
1. Light Blue - Constant position size of 2 contracts . Note how it is positive.
2. Dark Blue - My Combine performance, with highly variable position sizing. Note how it is negative.
Does anyone else find it interesting that my poor Combine performance so far isn't due to my entries and exits, but is due to Position Sizing.
I remember Ralph Vince (creator of optimal f) said that most (90%?) of system performance is due to position sizing.
Food for thought...
July 4th, 2013, 09:44 PM
Prince George BC Canada
Legendary Market Wizard
Experience: Advanced
Platform: National Bank Direct
Broker: NBD/BMO/Questrade
Trading: Stocks
Frequency: Every few days
Duration: Weeks
Posts: 1,343 since May 2013
Thanks Given: 264
Thanks Received: 4,232
kevinkdog
Does anyone else find it interesting that my poor Combine performance so far isn't due to my entries and exits, but is due to Position Sizing.
Not surprised at all. The problem I see with the 2 contract position size is that the probability of winning the combine is probably very low.
Starting with a big position only works if you were fortunate to have a winner on the first trade, then you would have the cushion you need and be off to the races. Your gamble or calculated risk only pays off if the first trade is a winner. If not you have a deep hole to dig yourself out of and have to cut position size in order to stay in the game.
Possibly you should limit your position size to only increasing when you are won’t be negative if you lose. IE: you can risk $1000 only if you have a $1000 cushion.
Isn't there a fable about slow and steady winning the race?
July 5th, 2013, 03:16 AM
Birmingham UK
Market Wizard
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NinjaTrader
Broker: TST/Rithmic
Trading: YM/Gold
Posts: 3,550 since Dec 2012
Thanks Given: 17,423
Thanks Received: 8,426
To add to what @deaddog said, it is all too easy to forget that losing 50% means you have to make 100% just to get back to square one...
July 5th, 2013, 07:20 AM
Posts: 3,668 since Jul 2012
Thanks Given: 1,893
Thanks Received: 7,378
deaddog
Not surprised at all. The problem I see with the 2
contract position size is that the probability of winning the combine is probably very low.
Starting with a big position only works if you were fortunate to have a winner on the first trade, then you would have the cushion you need and be off to the races. Your gamble or calculated risk only pays off if the first trade is a winner. If not you have a deep hole to dig yourself out of and have to cut position size in order to stay in the game.
Possibly you should limit your position size to only increasing when you are won’t be negative if you lose. IE: you can risk $1000 only if you have a $1000 cushion.
Isn't there a fable about slow and steady winning the race?
Based on your post, I ran the same Monte Carlo analysis on 2 more models:
1) 2 contracts always
2) "No Negative" Cushion Method - Increase size only if a losing trade will not cause you to go negative
The one in blue highlight is the one I am using right now.
Results below:
July 5th, 2013, 07:31 AM
prague, czech republic
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NT7, MT4
Broker: LMAX
Trading: DAX, Gold, Euro
Posts: 1,437 since Feb 2013
Thanks Given: 1,740
Thanks Received: 2,568
Kevin it would be interesting to add to these scenarios the calculation how long it would take to reach profit target, so we can get some visual interpretation of system profitability.
Trade to live. Not live to trade.
July 5th, 2013, 07:39 AM
Posts: 3,668 since Jul 2012
Thanks Given: 1,893
Thanks Received: 7,378
xelaar
Kevin it would be interesting to add to these scenarios the calculation how long it would take to reach profit target, so we can get some visual interpretation of system profitability.
This might take a bit to code, but I think I will try it. I'll post it if I can do it.
July 5th, 2013, 07:53 AM
Posts: 3,668 since Jul 2012
Thanks Given: 1,893
Thanks Received: 7,378
kevinkdog
This might take a bit to code, but I think I will try it. I'll post it if I can do it.
Actually, after looking at the code for this, I cannot do it without rewriting most of the code. Ugh.
I can estimate constant sizing, though. Trading 1 contract you make about $80 per trading day.
So, if you trade 2 contracts all the time, it would take you 100 trading days.
If you trade 6, it would take 33 days.
July 5th, 2013, 10:15 AM
Prince George BC Canada
Legendary Market Wizard
Experience: Advanced
Platform: National Bank Direct
Broker: NBD/BMO/Questrade
Trading: Stocks
Frequency: Every few days
Duration: Weeks
Posts: 1,343 since May 2013
Thanks Given: 264
Thanks Received: 4,232
kevinkdog
Actually, after looking at the code for this, I cannot do it without rewriting most of the code. Ugh.
I can estimate constant sizing, though. Trading 1
contract you make about $80 per trading day.
So, if you trade 2
contracts all the time, it would take you 100 trading days.
If you trade 6, it would take 33 days.
Do you get a max draw down for each scenario?
July 5th, 2013, 10:16 AM
Posts: 3,668 since Jul 2012
Thanks Given: 1,893
Thanks Received: 7,378
deaddog
Do you get a max draw down for each scenario?
What scenarios would you like to see drawdown for?
Last Updated on April 26, 2014