test-3-CLOSED 토론

Your DD wasn't 10%, market conditions at the time gave you 10%, but the next day it was -90%.

Clearly there is more risk here than you think.

And as per your question. On a 0.01 lot you are are putting down depending on pair lets say euro on a mini, 0.01 x 10 000 x exchange rate (1.27) = $127 (that's the dollar value of your trade), so the smallest trade you can do is already the same as your account size.

So 0.2 would be 0.2 x 10 000 x 1.27 = $ 2 540

Take a quick look at the account value. $200.

You're doing trades roughly 10 times your actual account value at 0.2 lots... a $2 500 trade with $200? That can only end one way.

In fact I'll take it a step further.

If you lose 10% of $100, you have $90, if you gain 10% on $90 you have $99, so the more you lose the more difficult it is to trade it back. By the time you take a 50% loss you have to make 100% to get it back.

So take your trade sizes, combine that with the principle above and you'll find most likely in 10 losses you won't be able to trade back.

Are you really out of the next 50 trades not going to get 10 losses?

At the moment you're not even making days. And you're blaming it on your mind when in fact it's purely trade sizes that's working against you.

   TheCyclist posted:
   In fact I'll take it a step further.

If you lose 10% of $100, you have $90, if you gain 10% on $90 you have $99, so the more you lose the more difficult it is to trade it back. By the time you take a 50% loss you have to make 100% to get it back.

So take your trade sizes, combine that with the principle above and you'll find most likely in 10 losses you won't be able to trade back.

Are you really out of the next 50 trades not going to get 10 losses?

At the moment you're not even making days. And you're blaming it on your mind when in fact it's purely trade sizes that's working against you.

Like what you said, is there a like button here?

thank you.
yes overall %DD is %90.
but %10 DD when I was in %90 gain. I am pointing that I did not make %90 gain with %90 DD.
I did make %90 gain with %10 DD. then %90 DD.

you are pointing the trade amount rollover regarding to account balance.
thats correct. with hihger lot size/leverage, total trade amount roll over is many times of the account balance.

but again this does not effec the win or loss.

but it effects the %percentage of costs of total trades regarding to the account balance. which is very important and I did not noticed that before.

if you are also pointitng that issue I completly agree and thank you again.

and I am really dissapointed that I missed that.

walker


 

   TheCyclist posted:
   Your DD wasn't 10%, market conditions at the time gave you 10%, but the next day it was -90%.

Clearly there is more risk here than you think.

And as per your question. On a 0.01 lot you are are putting down depending on pair lets say euro on a mini, 0.01 x 10 000 x exchange rate (1.27) = $127 (that's the dollar value of your trade)

So 0.2 would be 0.2 x 10 000 x 1.27 = $ 2 540

Take a quick look at the account value. $200.

You're doing trades roughly 10 times your actual account value at 0.2 lots... a $2 500 trade with $200? That can only end one way.

correct approach.
must think about that.
will post my answer soon.
 

   TheCyclist posted:
   In fact I'll take it a step further.

If you lose 10% of $100, you have $90, if you gain 10% on $90 you have $99, so the more you lose the more difficult it is to trade it back. By the time you take a 50% loss you have to make 100% to get it back.

So take your trade sizes, combine that with the principle above and you'll find most likely in 10 losses you won't be able to trade back.

Are you really out of the next 50 trades not going to get 10 losses?

At the moment you're not even making days. And you're blaming it on your mind when in fact it's purely trade sizes that's working against you.

lets sumup issues;

using high lot/leverage
effects;
%percentage of costs of total trades regarding to the account balance. which is very important and I did not noticed that before.

for fix lot size this approach is wrong.
'If you lose 10% of $100, you have $90, if you gain 10% on $90 you have $99, so the more you lose the more difficult it is to trade it back. By the time you take a 50% loss you have to make 100% to get it back.'

becouse even if you loose or win with fixed lot, tha way I trade, profit and the loss will always remain same.

is correct if you trade with changed lot size regarding to equity.

walker

   stevewalker posted:
   correct approach.
must think about that.
will post my answer soon.
 

   TheCyclist posted:
   In fact I'll take it a step further.

If you lose 10% of $100, you have $90, if you gain 10% on $90 you have $99, so the more you lose the more difficult it is to trade it back. By the time you take a 50% loss you have to make 100% to get it back.

So take your trade sizes, combine that with the principle above and you'll find most likely in 10 losses you won't be able to trade back.

Are you really out of the next 50 trades not going to get 10 losses?

At the moment you're not even making days. And you're blaming it on your mind when in fact it's purely trade sizes that's working against you.

You've missed most of what I said Steve. You're on another planet at the moment as far as FX goes. These 3 crash tests shows that.

I'm talking risk and you suddenly end up on costs ?!

I strongly suggest you stop trading, take a break, go buy Von Tharps book (can't remember the title, maybe someone can help), read it slowly a few times, mull over it and then come back and try this again, this time with a more grounded approach to risk.

Risk is everything. And I don't mean the bullshit Metatrader maths you find all over the web. % this % that. It starts with your trade sizes. Get that wrong and it's game over.

And the complexity is you don't really know what the correct trade sizes are for each system, you have to run them for long periods at very low performance so you can see the DD's develop before you can even think of turning them up.

For $200 you should be trading 0.00001 lots max... or 1 unit on Oanda and even that is risky. First thing Von Tharp says is people fail at investing because they don't start with enough. Took me about 8 years to figure out what he meant.

no offense & short answers.

agree
'And the complexity is you don't really know what the correct trade sizes are for each system, you have to run them for long periods at very low performance so you can see the DD's develop before you can even think of turning them up.'
thats what I am doing.

better put your money to Bank. no risk fix income. dont waste your time infront of screen with 0.00001 lot/200 usd.
'For $200 you should be trading 0.00001 lots max... or 1 unit on Oanda and even that is risky. First thing Von Tharp says is people fail at investing because they don't start with enough. Took me about 8 years to figure out what he meant.'

agree
'First thing Von Tharp says is people fail at investing because they don't start with enough'
'Second thing Walker says when you have enough money you have no experinece, whe you have experinece you have not enough money'😁
but nothing is enough if you dont tuned up.

balance sheet. every balance sheet has 'cost' , 'loss' & 'profit'
'I'm talking risk and you suddenly end up on costs ?!'
if you create a system that can achive 'profit=cost'(BE) and the if you can make it profitable 0.1 pip for each trade you will be millionare in months.( ofcouse all looking for tha same )

for fix lot wrong. for %risk equtiy / per trade correct.
'If you lose 10% of $100, you have $90, if you gain 10% on $90 you have $99, so the more you lose the more difficult it is to trade it back. By the time you take a 50% loss you have to make 100% to get it back.'

it is all about frequency/amplitute of equtiy curve that system will create.
components;
- %risk
- trade frequency
- R/R ratio
- Profitability
- Cost

whe all tuned it will work with correct system.


thats what I am trying to do.

walker

   TheCyclist posted:
   You've missed most of what I said Steve. You're on another planet at the moment as far as FX goes. These 3 crash tests shows that.

I'm talking risk and you suddenly end up on costs ?!

I strongly suggest you stop trading, take a break, go buy Von Tharps book (can't remember the title, maybe someone can help), read it slowly a few times, mull over it and then come back and try this again, this time with a more grounded approach to risk.

Risk is everything. And I don't mean the bullshit Metatrader maths you find all over the web. % this % that. It starts with your trade sizes. Get that wrong and it's game over.

And the complexity is you don't really know what the correct trade sizes are for each system, you have to run them for long periods at very low performance so you can see the DD's develop before you can even think of turning them up.

For $200 you should be trading 0.00001 lots max... or 1 unit on Oanda and even that is risky. First thing Von Tharp says is people fail at investing because they don't start with enough. Took me about 8 years to figure out what he meant.

TheCyclist
also Chikot is always saying that I am testing/trading with hihger leverage.
and you say I trade with big lot.

lets clear this.

trading with smaller lot size:
example.
trader will trade 6 months with 0.01 lot and get gain of %20 and then in 2 months will loose all back to initial deposit.
trader will trade 6 weeks with 0.1 lot and get gain of %20 and then in 2 weeks will loose all back to initial deposit.

what is the difference. 'TIME'

if system/trader can not generate profit it does not matter what lot size or leverage he/she use.

1 hour/day/week/month/year the result will be the same. loss or profit.

1-
if trader will use 0.01 lot with 100 pip target trading with 1 hour chart finding himself in loss will take 6 months time.
nature of 1 Hr chart. trading all different type of matket condition will tkae at least 6 months for 1 Hr chart.

2-
if trader will use 0.1 lot with 10 pip target trading with 1 min chart finding himself in loss will take 6 days time.
nature of 1 min chart. trading all different type of matket condition will tkae at least 6 days for 1 min chart.

second is what I am doing. testing my self and learning with the smaller time frame instead of wasting my time with 1 Hr chart which already did and after up/down perid end up wit loss after moths.

if any trader thinks that he can generate profit withhout a winner system with micro lot and trading with years he is wrong.

walker

PS : higher time does not meant that it has low noise.
the most clear chart is tick chart. when you get bigger time freams noise is gettin bigger but you dont see it. this is the nature of human brain.

if it woıuld be cost base possible, I wouıld like to trade tick chart instead of 1 min.

K well, as I said. Von Tharp. He'll explain it a lot better than I possibly can.

Main point here is it's not a mind problem. It's a risk problem. You can do the clever arguments, bottom line is your logic is not working or we wouldn't be having this discussion, we'd be slapping you on the back and buying beers if it was working.

I took one look at the test accounts, clear to me like the sun rises in the morning you can't make those work. No matter what you do. You'd need to be a prophet to trade that kind of risk successfully.

I suggest a bit further reading on the subject.

not doing clever arguments. those are the truths for me until the reverse proofed.

'I took one look at the test accounts, clear to me like the sun rises in the morning you can't make those work. No matter what you do. You'd need to be a prophet to trade that kind of risk successfully.'

I really dont know why you think that system will work with low risk. not logic.

it will only remain in profit little longer week/month then DD again.

thing I can understand, daily risk appetite of trader can drop very easly after some winners and when short time period(daily) combined with high pressure(trades) force trader mistakes. time can lower that risk. thats ok.

thanks for valuable input. a good discussion for me. will get the good parts.

walker

   TheCyclist posted:
   K well, as I said. Von Tharp. He'll explain it a lot better than I possibly can.

Main point here is it's not a mind problem. It's a risk problem. You can do the clever arguments, bottom line is your logic is not working or we wouldn't be having this discussion, we'd be slapping you on the back and buying beers if it was working.

I took one look at the test accounts, clear to me like the sun rises in the morning you can't make those work. No matter what you do. You'd need to be a prophet to trade that kind of risk successfully.

I suggest a bit further reading on the subject.

TheCyclist

importance of Cost.

just give a try.
time frame 1 hr.

rules:
open long if the last closed bar short
open short if the last closed bar long

if you trade with '0' spread + '0' comission means '0' cost you can make fortune with Fix TP,SL with a fine tune.

walker

guys

traded
thought
calculated
tested
coded

too much.

my conclusion is sometimes it wont happen as the period before. ( what the tre trader period is, it can be hour/day/week/.... )

so trader should stop at that point.
is there a sign for that, even if there is I could not find it.

I will start trading with my last setup
micro daily
main weekly
macro monthly
period.

I think the rest is to feel the market and decide where to stop.

walker

a mental trailing stop?

good luck