For those who are not programmers but have ideas for creating EAs, "dedicated to idea traders and programmers" - page 5
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
1 and 2 Your answers confront themselves, what use is historical data if the probability is constant 50% :)
3 - Fair enough, I personally am one of those 99% of traders, are you? This way, there are always two, I repeat TWO! scenarios, one and moreover the iron option in 99% of cases is right for non-professionals of the market, and that is why they do not see the trend and wait for reversal and those who have not lost and waited for this very pullback, called the great word "reversal" bang their chests and jump for joy, fix on the first hundred points of profit and wait again, because they know! :).
4 - So you admit that there's no need to develop a system, the money will flow from one hand to another, today it's a moose and tomorrow it will definitely be a profit, because that's what the market is?
5 - Error - this is when you lose money and I lose less, yes I earn less, but I also lose less, where is the error? Are you trying to convince me that I have to chase after profits, so I would lose my whole account in this chase, I don't understand. If I have lost a certain percentage of my account thanks to the system, is that not a reason to notice losses? And lastly, you are trying to raise me the fact that "losses" cannot be predicted and you suggest not to reduce the risk volume, do you mean that you have to start taking "profits"? Then where is the logic, please explain, if you do not like mine then try to argue yours.
:)
You are distorting what you are saying.
If you know in advance that the probability is 50%, then you should not engage in such a game at all, because the result will be minus the spread.
But this is true for the case of a coin. I'm not saying that the probability of any technology = 50%. I don't think so and I'm not saying that.
I don't admit to not developing a system and I don't say that. You shouldn't attribute to me what I don't say.
I just think there should be a system.
--------
I believe this argument needs to stop. Sorry, you are completely misunderstanding what has been said.
If you want, you can still reply so you can have the last word. And that will be the end of it.
No hard feelings, I hope.
When you run out of arguments and start getting emotional?
You are distorting what you are saying.
If you know in advance that the probability is 50%, then you should not engage in such a game at all, because the result will be minus the spread.
But this is true for the case of a coin. I'm not saying that the probability of any technology = 50%. I don't think so and I'm not saying that.
I don't admit to not developing a system and I don't say that. You shouldn't attribute to me what I don't say.
I just think there should be a system.
--------
I believe this argument needs to stop. Sorry, you are completely misunderstanding what has been said.
If you want, you can still reply so you can have the last word. And that will be the end of it.
No hard feelings, I hope.
Kelly's classic fractional formula: fraction = ((profit / loss + 1) * p - 1) * loss / profit
where:
profit - potential profit, if the deal is successful, for example, a takeprofit
loss - potential losses, if the deal will fail, for example, if the stoploss is triggered
p - probability that the trade will be successful (probability of failure is q = 1 - p)
So, let's paste all the data into the formula from the example above that caused all the fuss. If the coin is correct, then the probability of the coin going tails is p = 1 / 2 = 0.5. The probability for heads is exactly the same q = 1 - p = 0.5.
Potential profit profit = $2
Potential loss = $1
Fit everything into Kelly formula: fraction = ((2 + 1) / 2 - 1) / 2 = 0.25
If the value is positive, a bet can be placed in this game, as the MO will also be positive. The size of the next bet must not exceed the fraction, i.e. a quarter of the balance.
And we see that despite the 50% probability of the outcome, the game is nevertheless attractive for investment.
Rather, you SK, are trying to sell your opponent on it.
If you don't understand that, then further discussion is simply pointless.
I can only repeat the question, which is the key to the methodology under discussion:
How to determine the beginning of a losing streak, i.e. the moment when it is allegedly necessary to reduce bets?
(and at the same time I suggest to think: is it worth opening positions at all,
when it is known with more than 50% probability that a losing streak has begun?
Anyway, I've made my position quite clear.
I hope forum visitors will draw the right conclusions.
I suppose you can continue the discussion without me.
SK: You are wrongly focusing on the task at hand, and as a consequence you do not see the obvious things.
You should not emphasize the "series", I have already asked you a question, if you do not like losses, prove that you should wait for "winnings", there was no answer, there is probably no point in asking again.
Try to temporarily stress the word "losses", maybe the situation will clarify a little, the fact that it does not matter whether it is a series of losses or not, in general losses or gains, the important thing is that my account falls below the amount that I have identified as a critical threshold, the reasons why that threshold is located there, and without that we have not talked about because it shows obvious misunderstanding of the topic discussed.
You Mr. Reshetov has clearly showed that 50% is enough for successful trading, but what he showed are trifles compared to what he could show you if he wanted to, I say this not because I know him well, we are not familiar with him, but because on his site quite freely available are materials that are quite sufficient to earn normal money, you just need to find where and how to change a little algorithm decision-making, while what materials he has up his sleeve is anyone's guess, take the example, start thinking
PS: I don't know about anyone, it took me a few hours to become the owner of another profitable trading system. It's not enough, of course, it still needs to be tested online, but the fact remains.
I`ve got acquainted with your site, your works and articles, looked your photo, felt uncomfortable, you have to respect age, but it`s not fashionable nowadays, so I wanted to say if something is wrong I apologize for my tone. I can't give an opinion about the work, because I'm not a programmer, but it is impressive in scope, I think everyone should do what he does best and then many problems disappear by themselves, I mean that I have no thoughts to try to explain you anything in programming, because I objectively perceive my knowledge in that direction as unsatisfactory. For my part it may be that I reacted not very well to this argument because I am not the first one to "tweak" (not to be confused with programming) trading systems and it probably hurt my feelings a bit, and I apologize again for my tone. Good luck.
Rather, you SK, are trying to sell your opponent on it.
Kelly's classic fractional formula: fraction = ((profit / loss + 1) * p - 1) * loss / profit
where:
profit - potential profit, if the deal will be successful, for example, if takeprofit will work
loss - potential losses, if the deal will fail, for example, if the stoploss is triggered
p - probability that the trade will be successful (probability of failure is q = 1 - p)
So, let's paste all the data into the formula from the example above that caused all the fuss. If the coin is correct, then the probability of the coin going tails is p = 1 / 2 = 0.5. The probability for heads is exactly the same q = 1 - p = 0.5.
Potential profit profit = $2
Potential loss = $1
Fit everything into Kelly formula: fraction = ((2 + 1) / 2 - 1) / 2 = 0.25
If the value is positive, a bet can be placed in this game, as the MO will also be positive. The size of the next bet must not exceed the fraction, i.e. a quarter of the balance.
And we see that despite the 50% probability of the outcome, the game is nevertheless attractive for investment.
fraction=((1/1+1)*0.5-1)*1/1=0
The classic confirms the intuitively obvious answer - it is not worth investing in such a game.
I believe that for successful application of the above formula it is necessary to have clear and distinct idea how one can sit with a coin in hand or in front of a trading terminal and know in advance that with 50/50 probability my potential profit will be twice as big as my loss. If anyone knows a solution to this problem, any hints would be appreciated.
Already the third page of hints is coming to an end :)
I'll give you a hint, you need one, don't you?
You say that:
---------------
... the best game conditions I've ever encountered are: "OK, heads you get a ruble, but tails you lose a ruble"? By adding it to the formula, I get:
fraction=((1/1+1)*0.5-1)*1/1=0
The classic confirms the intuitively obvious answer - it's not worth investing in such a game.
---------------
Since you met such conditions of the game, then answer the question - what do those who offered you such terms have to gain from this game?
If they offered it, it means they benefited, find their benefit, what is the problem?
I think you have two answers.
1 - You have incorrectly assessed and/or described the terms of the game, in which case it is an amateurish task to find an answer to a wrong question.
2 - The interests of those who have offered you such terms are outside the realm of money interests (for example, a girl who just wants to spend time with you) :)
I'm silent about the fact that "the classics confirm the intuitively obvious answer," to the classics that something confirmed the existence of that very question, but as I do not see on the streets of cars with square wheels, and among the financial turnover I do not observe any tendency to zero, maybe it is in the "intuition"?
Maybe you don't need a hint, but a ready-made recipe?
Rather, you SK, are trying to sell your opponent.
Kelly's classic fractional formula: fraction = ((profit / loss + 1) * p - 1) * loss / profit
where:
profit - potential profit, if the deal is successful, for example, a takeprofit
loss - potential losses, if the deal will fail, for example, if the stoploss is triggered
p - probability that the trade will be successful (probability of failure is q = 1 - p)
So, let's substitute all the data into the formula from the example above that caused all the fuss. If the coin is correct, then the probability of the coin going tails is p = 1 / 2 = 0.5. The probability for heads is exactly the same q = 1 - p = 0.5.
Potential profit profit = $2
Potential loss = $1
Fit everything into Kelly formula: fraction = ((2 + 1) / 2 - 1) / 2 = 0.25
If the value is positive, a bet can be placed in this game, as the MO will also be positive. The size of the next bet must not exceed the fraction, i.e. a quarter of the balance.
And we see that despite the 50% probability of the outcome, the game is nevertheless attractive for investment.
fraction=((1/1+1)*0.5-1)*1/1=0
The classic confirms the intuitively obvious answer - it is not worth investing in such a game.
I believe that for successful application of the above formula it is necessary to have clear and distinct idea how one can sit with a coin in hand or in front of a trading terminal and know in advance that with 50/50 probability my potential profit will be twice as big as my loss. If anyone knows a solution to this problem, any hints would be appreciated.
The orygnostic game is just an example.
By the way, all this mess has been caused by the fact that SK made the statement that the supposedly 50% probability of winning is an indicator of a losing game. Actually it is not so (the formula shows that there are other important factors, besides probability, such as size of potential profit and loss). For example, you can go into a casino and close all 37 numbers of European roulette with 1 chip each. After that, the probability of winning would be 100%, because the bets are made on all numbers. But the result will not be in the player's favor, because the dealer will return his winnings in the amount of 35 * bets and the bet itself. A total of 37 chips were staked and the payout for the 100% winnings is only 36.