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.

BlueHorseshoe

Random Trading & Natural Selection

Recommended Posts

"Although the amount made or lost on any given day will differ

depending on how far from its open the session closes, over time (or

large sample size) this should become insignificant, as small losses will

negate small gains and large losses will negate large gains."

 

 

I'm not sure about this statement. If the game is rigged to your disadvantage then this may not happen. IMO it depends on the distribution function. If it skewed positively then you have a chance of making money with random trading. This article that was posted before is about the positive skew of SPY and the high chance of profitable random trading in that market. The problem is that distributions are known after the fact. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Although the amount made or lost on any given day will differ

depending on how far from its open the session closes, over time (or

large sample size) this should become insignificant, as small losses will

negate small gains and large losses will negate large gains."

 

 

I'm not sure about this statement. If the game is rigged to your disadvantage then this may not happen. IMO it depends on the distribution function. If it skewed positively then you have a chance of making money with random trading. This article that was posted before is about the positive skew of SPY and the high chance of profitable random trading in that market. The problem is that distributions are known after the fact. :)

 

Hi,

 

Thanks for reading. I'm not sure about my statement either - in fact I'm not sure about the whole argument.

 

One simple problem with what I say there is that days with outlying ranges tend to be down days (crash scenarios) in certain markets. Another problem is that there are very good fundamental reasons for expecting certain markets such as SPY to exhibit a long term uptrend (caused by smaller but more frequent up days).

 

One possible solution to this is to "tune" the degree to which randomness dictates trading decisions (i.e. skew the distribution of outcomes or "weight the coin").

 

Another is get closer to the noise by applying the concept using smaller timeframes.

 

Both of the above obviously entail new problems all of their own.

 

As soon as you apply the concept I describe in the PDF though, does any of the above matter? Some instances of the strategy will benefit from the skew, whereas others won't; the former enjoy increased position size to generate a net profit.

 

Hope I've understood you correctly.

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally do believe markets are not moving randomly otherwise consistant profits could not be made......even if only a pattern is becoming repetitive and the rest is random, still means the "randomness" label can't be applied there.

 

TW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally do believe markets are not moving randomly otherwise consistant profits could not be made......even if only a pattern is becoming repetitive and the rest is random, still means the "randomness" label can't be applied there.

 

TW

 

Hi TW,

 

I agree with you - I don't think markets are random either, not all the time, but . . . if they were I think they would be far easier to trade, not more difficult. It is natural to associate "random" with "unpredictable", but this is a mistake.

 

Random price movements conform to predictable distribution models.

 

Consider the following game:

 

I will toss an evenly weighted coin multiple times. If there are five heads in a row, Player A receives £200. If there are not five heads in a row, Player B will receive £20.

 

Who would you sooner be, Player A or B?

 

I look forward to your response . . .

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Player B for me :D

 

OMG my message is too short so I had to write this :crap:

 

Obviously.

 

Now consider another game. A market will either tick up or down with each trade. If there are five consecutive up ticks or down ticks, Player A wins £200. If there are not five consecutive upticks or downticks, then Player B will receive £20.

 

Who would you sooner be, Player A, or Player B?

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not random................................

 

Assume the crowd are just a bunch of random people in a shopping centre (or "mall", for most of you) . . . I would be willing to bet that the next person to walk up to that karaoke machine was a worse singer.

 

That's random.

 

That's regression to the mean.

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Far be it from me to disrupt this potentially excellent thread bud (as yet to manifest it's own humble ambushions)

 

I wouldn't worry about that - I'm surprised the thread ever re-surfaced!

 

Whether price is random or not doesn't really have too much to do with the original point I was trying to make - assuming that it is (I don't) is just the easiest way to present the concept and removes the possibility of any objection on the basis of a trader's inability to predict prices (which, ironically, is the argument you're now trying make in reverse!).

 

The thread is posted under "Money Management" because that is what it is about.

 

I would summarise its main points as follows:

 

  • Rather than applying a position-sizing formula to a portfolio based on the net profitability of that portfolio, it may make sense to apply the position-sizing to each strategy or market individually, based on the net profitability of that strategy or market.
     
  • This can include situations where the strategies are applied in the same market, and even those where they are applied simultaneously so that, in single contract terms, they are completely neutral (pre costs).

 

I'm far more interested to hear reasons why this money-management approach is flawed than I am in discussions about whether price movement is random.

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another experiment:

 

The BH is a contract that is very similar to the ES. It exhibits the same volatility and the contract value is identical. When BH moves 1 point, you stand to make or lose $50, just as with the ES.

 

You have a strategy which you may trade in either or both of these contracts.

 

You also know the historical performance of the strategy in each of these markets:

 

BH 20%

ES (20%)

 

What do you do?

 

Fast forward 1 year, and the returns for each market are now as follows . . .

 

BH (20%)

ES 20%

 

The trader who decided to only trade the BH, where historically the strategy had been profitable, has lost 20%.

 

The trader who decided to trade single contracts in both the ES and the BH has broken even.

 

The trader who decided to trade both the ES and the BH applying a fixed fractional money management approach is (roughly) breakeven. Though the profits from the ES would have allowed larger position sizing, this would have been reflected in the position sizing for both markets, so the losses in BH would also have been correspondingly larger.

 

The trader who began trading single contracts in each market but increased position-size for each particular market based on the strategy's profitability in that particular market should show a net profit. His single contract returns for ES would be negated by his single contract returns for BH, but he would have been trading multiple contracts of ES, leaving a net profit.

 

I have described what is hopefully a worst-case scenario again here; if you think you have a great strategy, then maybe it would have made 50% in one market and only lost 2% in the other, or whatever . . .

 

The outcome for a strategy isn't based on all of the price change of the instrument it is applied to - all that matters is the price change at those times when strategy and price intersect (when you have a position) - call that limited set of prices Data Set A. If a second strategy intersects with different prices and we call these prices Data Set B, then when you compare Data Set A and Data Set B you will have two different sets of price, which is pretty much the same thing as having two different markets. Hence exactly what I have described above with the ES and BH could be applied with two different strategies in just one single market.

 

BlueHorseshoe

Edited by tradingwizzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you REALLY serious about making SUBSTANTIAL profits trading the financial markets? Then take a look at the equity curve for the AMAZING trading strategy below . . .

 

  • Profitable over 10 years of ES data
  • Contains no element of curve fitting or optimised parameters
  • Sample size of well over 1000 trades

 

Wouldn't you love to be able to trade with this FANTASTIC strategy that just keeps on WINNING? Imagine what these PROFITS would look like if you traded more than one contract or many markets at once!

 

ONE-TIME SPECIAL OFFER - NUMBERS STRICTLY LIMITED - GET THE STRATEGY AT A 20% DISCOUNTED PRICE OF JUST $3800 !!!

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

 

// Buys or Sells Short randomly on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays
// One day holding period
// Generated attached equity curve on first attempt

if Dayofweek(date)=1 or Dayofweek(date)=3 or Dayofweek(date)=5 then begin
if random(10)>4 then
buy this bar
else
sellshort this bar;
end;

If Barssinceentry=1 then
Setexitonclose;

5aa7120551a0a_StreakyReturns.png.b3ac9c3895456a6c896d85dcb7b94253.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mitsubishi,

 

Not sure I like your tone . . .

 

I like your idea of trading as many instruments as you possibly can at once so you don't lose potential profits by only successfully trading one or two.

 

The "idea" isn't diversification. It's applying position sizing to individual markets/strategies rather than to a whole portfolio.

 

If you don't think that idea has merit but you're not prepared to provide concrete reasons for why, then any kind of discussion will be difficult.

 

It's this kind of mental approach that separates the theorists from the wannabe traders.

 

I enjoy theory. I spend a lot of time looking at theoretical trading methods around market microstructure that I know I'll never have the capital or technology to do anything with. I'd also like to apply my longer term ideas to trading a large universe of stocks, but I don't have the capital so the costs would kill me. So it's all just theory for me.

 

I also trade. End of day. Not automated, but entirely rule based. One single approach. It's very boring.

 

What I have described above is incorporated into what I am doing - past performance in each particular market is a factor in position sizing for me.

 

Are you planning to start a room soon?

 

Nope. Just trying to share ideas with other people here for free and hopefully get some feedback from those with more knowledge and experience. Just the usual. Nothing sinister. If people don't find it useful then it's no big deal - it's just a way to pass the time . . .

 

Kind regards,

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you REALLY serious about making SUBSTANTIAL profits trading the financial markets? Then take a look at the equity curve for the AMAZING trading strategy below . . .

 

  • Profitable over 10 years of ES data
  • Contains no element of curve fitting or optimised parameters
  • Sample size of well over 1000 trades

 

Wouldn't you love to be able to trade with this FANTASTIC strategy that just keeps on WINNING? Imagine what these PROFITS would look like if you traded more than one contract or many markets at once!

 

ONE-TIME SPECIAL OFFER - NUMBERS STRICTLY LIMITED - GET THE STRATEGY AT A 20% DISCOUNTED PRICE OF JUST $3800 !!!

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

 

// Buys or Sells Short randomly on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays
// One day holding period
// Generated attached equity curve on first attempt

if Dayofweek(date)=1 or Dayofweek(date)=3 or Dayofweek(date)=5 then begin
if random(10)>4 then
buy this bar
else
sellshort this bar;
end;

If Barssinceentry=1 then
Setexitonclose;

 

Gorgeous curve! Comes with a cold and hard slap of the invisible hand of reality too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gorgeous curve! Comes with a cold and hard slap of the invisible hand of reality too.

 

What amused me was that I thought I'd would have to keep running the code and eventually it would produce a nice looking curve. But the "gorgeous" curve came on the first pass - then none of a further twenty or so attempts produced anything even halfway decent.

 

Now what were the chances of that?

 

Kind regards,

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What amused me was that I thought I'd would have to keep running the code and eventually it would produce a nice looking curve. But the "gorgeous" curve came on the first pass - then none of a further twenty or so attempts produced anything even halfway decent.

 

Now what were the chances of that?

 

Kind regards,

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

 

Just out of interest, of the 1200 or so trades in the back test what percentage of time is your nice looking equity curve making new equity highs ? (I suspect it's less than 20% of the time)

 

You'd be doing new and losing traders a huge favor by publishing that statistic.

 

Your original post on this thread is probably one of few intelligent things I've ever read on any trading forum in over a decade. If your not already making a fortune trading at this point, it won't be long until you will be.

 

It's a pity there isn't a trading forum where this sort of stuff can be discussed, but perhaps it's just as well, some cats need to be kept in bags or everyone would be doing it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What amused me was that I thought I'd would have to keep running the code and eventually it would produce a nice looking curve. But the "gorgeous" curve came on the first pass - then none of a further twenty or so attempts produced anything even halfway decent.

 

Now what were the chances of that?

 

Kind regards,

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

Amazing.

 

I remember a thread on TS that people were posting their most vertical equity curves from backtesting. It was a fun thread. I recall a few resulting in billion dollar gains starting with 10k.

 

Timing is critical with random entry since you are relying on luck.

 

If you go to a casino with $180 intending on playing $5 on your birthday number on a roulettle wheel, how different will the results be if you arrive at 8:00PM or 9:00 PM? If you play at table A or table B? If you go today or tomorrow, etc? If you have your favorite shirt on or not???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just out of interest, of the 1200 or so trades in the back test what percentage of time is your nice looking equity curve making new equity highs ? (I suspect it's less than 20% of the time)

 

Unfortunately I can't provide this statistic . . . I didn't record it at the time, and now there is no way that I can recall the trading decisions that this particular instance of the strategy enacted, as they were random.

 

Having said all that, I imagine that the equity curve made new highs little of the time as you suggest. Single unit equity curves, whether profitable or not, spend most of their time regressing towards a mean. New traders may struggle with this, but so do others.

 

This thread is not posted in Trading Psychology, but . . . :offtopic:

 

I have issues with this. I don't suffer from any excessive egoism. I am not someone who is obsessed with being a "winner". I trade an entirely mechanical approach with no discretionary decisions for which I am "responsible". Due to the self-learning methodology I employ, elements of the strategy are completely 'hidden' from me (I really have little idea of the specifics of what the strategy is doing, beyond the broad strokes).

 

But I can still watch a position and end up massively frustrated. Why?

 

What to do???

 

A recent post from SIUYA sums it up perfectly:

 

recognize it, work out a solution that works - probably by trial and error, and then fix it

 

In my case, I got someone else to place the trades.

 

I pretty much ignore it all. They don't care, so they follow the radar screen I gave them. To them, it's all OPM. I don't check the account balance (different broker to TS, who I use for charting). I follow the ES and EC more closely intra-day, so I have a good idea what these are doing, but I have no idea about my likely position in timber ETFs or REITs, say - maybe I'm long, maybe I'm flat, maybe I'm short . . . maybe I'm rich, maybe I'm broke . . . .

 

The only thing I know is that if I'm directly involved I'll sabotage it :)

 

Hope that helps someone.

 

BlueHorseshoe

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

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • 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/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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