Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

M.A

What is "consistency"?

Recommended Posts

"To be a successful trader u need to be consistently profitable".

I have read similar statements countless times on forums. Consistent profitability assures that a strategy is good enough to beat market in the time period in which a strategy is tested. Even most successful traders loose a percentage of trades. So consistent profitability is usually measured in different ways by different traders. Most popular, IMO, is to check monthly results. But does everyone take end-of-the-month results to measure consistent profitability?

 

Does consistency mean to be profitable every day? Every week? or every month? Or do u measure it by analyzing making "n" sets of trading history and then check if each set is profitable or not? Do u think it depends on trading style?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"To be a successful trader u need to be consistently profitable".

I have read similar statements countless times on forums. Consistent profitability assures that a strategy is good enough to beat market in the time period in which a strategy is tested. Even most successful traders loose a percentage of trades. So consistent profitability is usually measured in different ways by different traders. Most popular, IMO, is to check monthly results. But does everyone take end-of-the-month results to measure consistent profitability?

 

Does consistency mean to be profitable every day? Every week? or every month? Or do u measure it by analyzing making "n" sets of trading history and then check if each set is profitable or not? Do u think it depends on trading style?

 

I'll tell you one thing. I placed upon myself the paradigm that I need to be consistently profitable "X" amount each day to cover what I need every month. I think it's worked against me. There is almost a symphony of ebb and flow to doing this. There are moments when a quick trade for easy profits is necessary and those times when it's best to sit back and let the position breath, even if it means you don't have a big week.

Edited by Enigmatics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M.A.

 

re "What is 'consistency'?"

Historically the favored way for measuring managers is adequate slope and sufficient smoothness of equity curve.

 

:nowgoingofftopik???: I have found that it’s best for me to ‘measure’ consistency not on outcomes, but on the consistency of my own moment to moment and day to day perceptual acuity … (fwiw, that's individualized info…learned through naturally being a little bit more mutable than average, and across many years of often trading multiple systems at once, realizing the long hard way that returns are simply not consistent across time… strive for inner consistency … outer / returns consistency – forgetaboutit :) )

 

Steady, ‘consistent’ returns across a long sample often means the trader is running mm (too) far below the optimum… yet (somehow) finding a way to remain ‘exposed’ anyways…;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adequate slope and sufficient smoothness of equity curve

Gud one. I think having a look at equity curve will be enough to check profit consistency.

 

Steady, ‘consistent’ returns across a long sample often means the trader is running mm (too) far below the optimum

 

There is no optimum level and we can always do better. I understand that even consisten returns doesnt mean optimum level. But does it mean "far below optimum"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no optimum level and we can always do better. I understand that even consisten returns doesnt mean optimum level. But does it mean "far below optimum"?

 

When I said "Steady, ‘consistent’ returns across a long sample often means the trader is running mm (too) far below the optimum…" I was talking about sizing mostly... not personal performance...

 

MM math has one sizing schema that approximates optimum-f... a 'sweet spot' sizing for the expectancy (has to be +) of a particular system. Setting aside the practical part that optimal-f is still to high and just focusing on the 'theoretical' - what I was saying is if you run at about a third of optimal - f (for most 'typical' systems) you will produce a little bit more of the smooth part of 'consistency' (as defined) (... and a lower slope too... btw.) ... very generally speaking though...

It's all really system specific.

...and one of the best 'professional' traders I've ever known, Dinesh D., routinely 'outperformed' and routinely had a very jagged eCurve and routinely was in (up to) 40% drawdowns... to talk with him you would project that he was risk averse and seeking consistency... but somehow in real life trading he was able to forego 'consistency'...

 

A properly correlated and dynamically sized 'portfolio of systems' is the penultimate 'consistency' machine...

 

hth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hard to undestand u or maybe I am the only one not getting u.

I have read about optimal-f mm, not in detail thoug. Even if we use 1/3 of optimal-f, curve will not change because Profit/Loss ratio doesnt depend on optimal-f. The only change will be in amounts and thus in individual percentages for profit and loss.

 

Also, with Dinesh example, are u saying that a risk averse trader routinely has 40% drawdown and he is a professional trader? Sounds weird. Isnt it a bad definition of a Pro trader?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M.A.

 

You are joining those who realize that I am probably the worst communicator ever… but for the occasional soul who does actually benefit from my communications, I wouldn’t even bother...

 

Re: “Even if we use 1/3 of optimal-f,” … that’s correct. The red runs and accomp. drawdowns will still occur. However if you run the tests on most typical systems at circa .33 optimal-f the EC will look SMOOTHER – which is one of the ways of metricking ‘consistency’ we were discussing. It is system dependent. If you bitfiddle and slide testing up and down around that .33 of optimal-f, you will find each system’s smoothest %... never will be all smooth… except for the occasional chance and temporary anomaly

 

with Dinesh example, I was briefly discussing the broader side of the question

What is "consistency"?. …and I didn’t say he was a risk averse trader. I meant that in my initial personal contacts with him my impressions belied the actual amount ‘unconsistency’ he could tolerate.

And btw, 40% drawdowns do not ‘define’ a professional trader as bad at all. (These days he wouldn't get hired as a manager... but..).

It is system dependent. For example, at the returns per instrument level (not portf level), one of the most ‘inconsistent’ methods you could ever apply is true and near true trend trading. Each trader needs to ‘study’ him or herself AND ‘study’ the available systems and then align himself to the systems most compatible to himself… the varying 'need' for ‘consistency’ is an aspect of that …we all would love ‘consistency’ in the ideal… but in actual practice some of us can tolerate more inconsistency than others can.

Anecdotally… coming up on 30 years trading and when I look back and remember the times I felt the need and tried to figure out how to be more ‘consistent’ in my trading per se that was typically just a symptom of much deeper issues… just sayin…

 

All the best,

 

zdo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are joining those who realize that I am probably the worst communicator ever

Nope. I do not plan on joining any "group" :). But this is fact that ur writing style is a bit difficult for me to understand. Maybe due to too many abbreviations or maybe due to some other reason.

 

About 0.33 of optimal-f...maybe an example would be best because I am still confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.