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.

Frank

Don Millers Blog

Recommended Posts

One thing I have been trying to conceptualize is what very successful traders are doing in terms of: big leverage for small pieces of the market vs smaller leverage on larger pieces.

 

I am proposing this not as fact, just as a way to kick things off and to be thought about intelligently to hopefully get an understanding of how you are doing in terms of 'pace'.

 

Don admits 2008 performance may or may not be repeated -- but let's just discuss it for a second.

 

1. Don made $1.7 million net in 2008 (after commissions).

2. At 252 trading days, that is $6746 per day

3. Assuming he took 20 trading days off, that is $7328 per day

4. At $50 per point ($12.50 per tick), this would assume he made 146.55 total points per day

 

146.55 at 30 contracts per trade would be 4.9 ES points per day

146.55 at 25 contracts per trade would be 5.9 ES points per day

146.55 at 20 contracts per trade would be 7.3 ES points per day

 

-------------

 

This is just speculative at this point. But to continue to a logical point, even if the 'current' math is off --- then:

 

the average pit session range in 2008 was about 31 points -- with the median at 26 points per day.

 

Using the extremes, Don took as profit somewhere between 16% and 28% of the range of the market on average in 2008.

 

I am going to just say for now that a good 'benchmark' for very strong performance is when/if you are averaging 20% of the range offered by the market. So if market is offering 20 points a day, making 4 on average is a solid 'average' day. If market is offering 25 points a day, making 5 on average is an 'average' day in an overall 'very strong' performance pace.

 

Comments welcome of course.

Edited by Frank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on trading style, size of stops, scalping or going for intraday swings etc. But as a rule of thumb I know a few ex-pit traders and they all quote capturing 30% of daily range as a realistic goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Don made about one million in 2008 with a goal of 1.2 in 2009. ? Regardless, 1 or 1.2 or 1.7 are all impressive.

 

I've read elsewhere that Don trades size and that his average gain per contract is like $4. But he trades a crap-ton of them. I haven't read his blog long enough to know for sure, either, but just tossing that out there.

 

He made a how-to video around six years ago. I don't know if it's good or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you make 15 trades a day or 1, you have a NET amount made -- you divide this by $50 ($12.50 per tick) and that is your total points made on the day. The reason I structured it like this was because it doesn't matter what your strategy is or how many contracts you trade. If you make a net 5 points, whether you traded 15 times or once, whether you traded 50 contracts or 1, you made a net 5 points per contract.

 

The reason I bring this up is because I have been in a lot of trades recently where I am up 3-4 points and have limits out for where I think price is 'highly likely' to go. But whether it hits my limits or not sometimes feels like luck -- and sometimes I miss my targets by very small margin and price then moves back sharply and I make a small amount on what was once a 5 point winner. So there is this tradeoff of nailing a big swing for 7-15 points vs taking that 'sure 4 points you have right now' and leaving big profits on the table when you nail the structure.

 

Another factor is that there are days when the market is doing strange things that you aren't in sync with and using larger size will hurt you -- whereas using smaller size (and implicitly targeting bigger wins) doesn't hurt as much. However, when you are in sync with the markets swings, you will be accumulating profits at very high percentage by using smaller targets --- and this seems to be Dons 'primary' method (I say primary because he does get big wins too -- its just that he has been in straight grinder mode lately and that is not a bad thing).

 

But this thread is not really about 'hitting singles' vs 'swinging for fences' styles. Its really about just thinking about setting reasonable goals (ie, 2-10 pts a day, averaging 4-5 pts) so that you aren't trying to do too much and sabotaging yourself along the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Frank said:

The reason I bring this up is because I have been in a lot of trades recently where I am up 3-4 points and have limits out for where I think price is 'highly likely' to go. But whether it hits my limits or not sometimes feels like luck -- and sometimes I miss my targets by very small margin and price then moves back sharply and I make a small amount on what was once a 5 point winner. So there is this tradeoff of nailing a big swing for 7-15 points vs taking that 'sure 4 points you have right now' and leaving big profits on the table when you nail the structure.

 

That's the point I'm making about styles. For a scalper it makes sense to have target for each trade and for the day. If you're trading for the swings the market has a habit of deciding how much you make. For example if you use an entry signal in the opposite direction as your exit then the market is telling you what it wants to give.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank logical post except for the final step. Without knowing the size he trades it is pretty hard to tell % of range. Not sure who the guy is or how he trades but it is quite likely that he would increase his size as account equity grew. I seem to recall a spreadsheet that shows taking one point a day, with one contract, and adding contracts to maintain the same risk as equity grows, gets your account to over a million in a year...might be off on the fine detail but compounding is a fearsome thing.

 

What I am trying to say is that it is much easier to make more by correct position sizing than eeking out a few more ticks here and there.

 

Having said that looking at return against range is an interesting concept. I think it was in one of Elders books I was first introduced to it. I guess if you want to push yourself in that direction it is handy but every single time I would go for less range and more consistency and let compounding do its job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Wes said:
I thought Don made about one million in 2008 with a goal of 1.2 in 2009. ? Regardless, 1 or 1.2 or 1.7 are all impressive.
his original 2008 goal was $1mm. when he reached that, he raised it to $1.25mm. he finished the year up roughly $1.6mm. he changed his goals a couple times for 2009, trying to get a good read on the market and his trading trends. initially he was going to cut back and just wanted to be green ... even up by $1 by the end of 2009 was to be considered successful. he then got his trading groove going and set a $1.2mm goal for 2009. since, he's adjusted it to a flat $1mm.

 

  Wes said:
I've read elsewhere that Don trades size and that his average gain per contract is like $4. But he trades a crap-ton of them. I haven't read his blog long enough to know for sure, either, but just tossing that out there.
Don trades decent size (i think it is in chunks of 15, 30, and 60), but frequency is the standout here. Don is a seat-holding liquidity provider, so, yes, he does trade a crap-ton of contracts. it's not unusual for him to trade 2-4k contracts (so in a single session, 1-2k round turns).

 

Don spends a lot of time in the market, putting out feeler or probing trades. he has repeatedly pointed out that he is the type of trader who gets a better feel for the current by being in the water. if he makes money on his feeler bets, great, but he is testing the water for a bigger current he can ride.

 

also, keep in mind that Don doesn't get too wrapped up in daily averages and statistics. his intraday win-loss ratio and P/L per trade doesn't look too appealing. but he probably averages about $7-9k net per day. i'm sure that looks appealing to most people.

 

hope that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote
Frank logical post except for the final step. Without knowing the size he trades it is pretty hard to tell % of range. Not sure who the guy is or how he trades but it is quite likely that he would increase his size as account equity grew.

 

we do have idea of size he trades -- he discusses it -- we can't be precise about the size --- this is why I did ranges. further, he has stated that he does not increase his size much with account growth, fwiw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh OK thanks for clarifying that Frank.

 

The fact remains that the easiest way (by far) to increase equity is by increasing size provided you have a consistent edge. The limit of course is the size you can trade without getting excessive slippage.

 

Having said that some traders never trades more than 2 cars and when thier account gets to a certain size they essentially start again. Most traders have psychological hurdles at certain sizes that can be problematic too.

 

The main point I am trying to make (and to answer the question in your first sentence) you can use small leverage and take small pieces of the market and still making massive returns without ever incurring extra risk (as a percentage of account equity) or needing excessive leverage. That is the wonder of compounding. Increasing leverage increases the risk of ruin so increase size whilst keeping leverage constant (or even reducing it slightly over time as your account grows).

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.