Not only that it's been proven even more conclusively with a huge series of the worlds biggest losers.Originally Posted by ;
FT
Not only that it's been proven even more conclusively with a huge series of the worlds biggest losers.Originally Posted by ;
FT
Provided that you have the right kind of account for place size alloion to steer clear of asymetrical leverage issues it's all about the most robust money management through the broadest variety of systems and market conditions out there.Originally Posted by ;
Ft
I made a spreadsheet around that exact kind of system that allowed placing a different hazard level for those equity and profits. I played round and experimented with quite a few scenarios. In the end I found it was easier just to increase more than (% r) position size as profits attained certain amounts and that equity curve was simplest to control and more tangible that manner. In the end it was a version on a ratio position sizing plan.Originally Posted by ;
FT
FT
i know, i know. Ya keep testing and testing, and you end up back where you began gt; percentR. when it has to do with MM, simple is exceptional.
The only time I use the percentRP is in loion of an optimalf egy. And that is not.
LOL. Among the spreadsheets had that feature that I'd disabled before submitting it since it was outside the topic that I was addressing.Originally Posted by ;
After much research that is precisely why I'd concluded it was simpler just to adjust over all risk level as the account improved. Once I'd seen that mixing the danger of proft and original equity just escalated to a sliding scale of danger I determined it didn't much matter how you go about it that you just require a risk profile that reflects your own body and market doctrine.Originally Posted by ;
You've got a fairly large risk tolerance. Either that or you've got a fairly large win ratio.Originally Posted by ;
With a %hazard MM system you can't control your risk really close to the constant level of danger that you want to achieve if your position size jumps in massive increments. Envision trading 100k place size using a 25k account. If you define your risk to a constant 2 percent you'll be able to danger 500.00 which means trading one contract using 50 pip ceases or two contracts with 25 pip stops. If your stops needs to be at 30 pips, what happens? Then you can just trade 1 contract that means danger of 1.2 percent with a single contract or 2.4 percent with two. Put simply your leverage is either too little or too big in that scenario but whenever your account reaches 30k you can exchange 2 contracts with 30 pip stops and also have just 2 percent risked.Originally Posted by ;
As soon as you jump from 1 contract to two your leverage doubles from when you're trading a single contract. So between 25k and 30k you're risking less than two percent. Really much closer to 1 per cent for a great part of the time. If your projected equity curve permits 2 percent danger you don't make quite as much cash if you're winning as you should since you aren't risking 2 percent. If you're losing you will lose much less by not risking much but in a positive anticipation system using a wonderful distribution of wins and losses you will not be maximizing your profits. Thus you lack a symetrical leverage and based on how your trades work this out can help or hurt you. My research proves that it is going to hurt you a good deal more often that it is going to help you. I've mostly found scenarios where a constant risk is much more rewarding than fluctuating risk.
To resolve the issue of asymetrical leverage all you need is a smaller place size in relation to your account dimensions. With FOREX trading the very best results I've found indied that having the ability to initiate position dimensions in 1000.00 increments was greatest for accounts under 20k. Often these are called micro mini. After 20k or so graduating to a mini or 10k increments in exchange size... etc. I have not used it FXCM includes a module that permits sizing trades to an exact percentage and will correspondingly produce a position size to an exact dollar amount that reflects the exact percentage. I think there's a minimum account size needed.
If your minimum position size is too big concerning your account dimensions the exact same thing will also occur to a larger account. A great example is back when SP contracts required 15 to 20% of margin and there were no mini contracts. A person trading these contracts and a %R MM approach would experience a great deal of asymetrical leverage with 500k and see its effect with accounts to the low millions.Originally Posted by ;
Right.Originally Posted by ;
Huh?Originally Posted by ;
FT
Fiji you edited my own post! Its easy to become confused between the edit and quote button
LOL. You are. Probably you use %RP (if you dust off it) since it gives you a different way to check at risk than because it is any better even in these rare cases. If you do use it most likely it is more testing and when experimentation than for your PF trading?Originally Posted by ;
Personally I tried it out as somebody (I think it was Van Tharpe or Willi) mentioned it in their advertising literature like it had been a novel idea, and so I mimicked it to see what it had been about. In the end of the afternoon it is an eye ching marketing thought to market a novel spin on money management. It is enlightening to play.
FT
Sorry Merlin trouble fixed.