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)
1)as long as continued equity drawdown is not below statistically determined equity drawdown
2)and sideways/drawdown time characteristic is also not violated
then your system needs to continue to run unless your system pass/fail criteria and priorities have changed since inception.
the other thing is you may want to consider scale-in and scale-out logic rather than simply all-in all-out contract compounding. not sure if this would be considered a system design change or separate money/position size management separate from system design??
Thanks for the comments. Yes, even though things are not going well right now, until it violates my initial "quit" point, I will continue on trading it.
I did not include any kind of scale in / scale out arrangement when I designed the system, so I cannot put it in now (I could, but then it would be a new system completely). Normally, I create systems just trading a single contract, and then apply position sizing later, usually including it with other systems I am trading.
Discussion on modifying the "quit" point after-the-fact...
I am 100% for setting up measurements prior to enabling and running the strategy. But I think most people would be modifying them in some way, especially their 'quit' point, after this kind of duration/result.
Can you tell us what keeps you 100% convinced to follow the rule you initially set? Has this rule always been a key component of your rule set? Has it saved your bacon in the past?
Is this quit rule flexible enough to account for change in behavior of markets?
Do you plan to start trading one of your other systems publicly in this thread? I know you have other systems, and I also know you don't want a public failure because it's embarrassing.
But I'd like to encourage you to do so, because the benefit of this thread to systems builders is immense. It's real world and not hyper inflated BS.
You bring up some good points, here are some answers:
Can you tell us what keeps you 100% convinced to follow the rule you initially set? Has this rule always been a key component of your rule set? Has it saved your bacon in the past?
The rule is I use to establish a "quit point" before I start trading a particular system/strategy. The reason I do this is because I am not good at making decisions under emotional duress. Most people aren't.
A great example of this is my second grader's baseball team, 8 year old kids. Time and time again, during a game I watched an infielder get a grounder, maybe bobble it, panic and throw to the wrong base, or not throw the ball at all. So, I started to tell them, BEFORE the ball is hit, rehearse in your mind where you will throw it if the ball is hit to you. Then, just do what you had planned. You can guess what happened. Much, much better decision making, and many more good plays. Happier, less stressed kids, too!
I did not always follow this "rule," and sometimes I still don't. But it has helped me in the past. I make better decisions when there is no pressure.
Is this quit rule flexible enough to account for change in behavior of markets?
This rule really encompasses a lot of things: change in market behavior, poor developed system (that falls apart in real time), etc. What it really tells you is "hey, you better quit trading this system. Something is wrong here."
Some people have different systems for different markets. Maybe they trade 1 for a volatile bull, another for a quiet bull, etc. That's great, if you can really define these markets and test your system in advance. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people test their system on all data, and then go back and say "hmmm, this system doesn't work well in bull markets. From now on, I'll avoid trading it during that time." I personally don't think that is wise, but if it works for you, who am I to say?
I'll have to think about that. I honestly don't know how worthwhile this type of thread actually is, beyond what I've already posted.
Based on the most popular threads, I think most people like reading about the positive possibilities of trading rather than dealing with the negative realities of it. And I like seeing the positive too.
I personally think this thread is invaluable and one of the best on futures.io (formerly BMT). I have learned more reading this then others. It has caused me to think of trading differently and outside of the narrow box I had when I first came here.
I have taken some of the ideas of automated trading and working to apply them to my mechanical discretionary trading plan. i.e. having a set plan (with define rules that have been explained and tested [still working on that]) and sticking to it, then also working on an analytical framework that I can use to grade my trades / setups.
I think I agree with this. My trading is essentially discretionary (recognizing patterns, S/R, PA, etc.), but for that reason it is necessary to fence in my discretion with very clear and simple decision points, or I will just be shooting from the hip, telling myself basically what I want to hear instead of what is there.
It's good to have a model of clear thinking to keep me more honest.
Same here. I trade discretionary, but I am spending a lot more time in analysis. One thing I have learned is one "setup" I have been trading is totally 50/50, with so far no discernible edge. The trades that actually succeed seem to be basically luck. Very sobering, but glad I have started studying.
This has also made me look at things a lot more analytically, iow, if I go short/long every time a certain scenario develops...what happens??? Unfortunately, I am finding out a lot of it is 50/50.