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.

choubix

Question on Kelly Formula : Positive Expectancy But...

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone,

 

I am currently reading about the Kelly formula on various website.

I now understand better that money management is a powerful tool to use when trading.

 

However something escapes me:

Assuming one has a trading system tat delivers a positive expectancy BUT there are fewer winning trades than losing trades, how to use the kelly formula??

 

e.g:

 

winning trades : 45%

losing trades : 55%

 

average win: 2,000

average loss: 1,000

 

expectancy is positive with : 0.45 * 2,000 - 0.55 * 1,000 = 350

 

Yet the K% would be negative because there are only 45% winning trades.

 

K% = (0.45 - 0.55) / 2 (where 2 is derived from 2,000 / 1,000)

 

Is there a more "refined/updated" Kelly formula that addresses this issue or this kind of bet should be considered a bad trade and should be avoided ?

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually I also made a mistake as I wrote : K% = (0.45 - 0.55) / 2 (where 2 is derived from 2,000 / 1,000)

 

when actually it should be:

 

K% = 0.45 - ( 0.55 / 2 )

 

which returns a positive result (17.5% as you mentioned equtrader)

 

Tks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
actually I also made a mistake as I wrote : K% = (0.45 - 0.55) / 2 (where 2 is derived from 2,000 / 1,000)

 

when actually it should be:

 

K% = 0.45 - ( 0.55 / 2 )

 

which returns a positive result (17.5% as you mentioned equtrader)

 

Tks!

 

ur welcome with a delay:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello everyone,

 

I am currently reading about the Kelly formula on various website.

I now understand better that money management is a powerful tool to use when trading.

 

However something escapes me:

Assuming one has a trading system tat delivers a positive expectancy BUT there are fewer winning trades than losing trades, how to use the kelly formula??

 

e.g:

 

winning trades : 45%

losing trades : 55%

 

average win: 2,000

average loss: 1,000

 

expectancy is positive with : 0.45 * 2,000 - 0.55 * 1,000 = 350

 

Yet the K% would be negative because there are only 45% winning trades.

 

K% = (0.45 - 0.55) / 2 (where 2 is derived from 2,000 / 1,000)

 

Is there a more "refined/updated" Kelly formula that addresses this issue or this kind of bet should be considered a bad trade and should be avoided ?

 

Thanks!

 

The Kelly formula is only useful if you are taking on a single trade at once. You will not make money if you play a single trade of the same strategy at one time unless you are highly leveraged or you have a substantial cash reserve. Also you will take larger hits to your cash reserve. It's a good lesson for making basic trades, but it is really poor in terms of actual risk management. I know for a fact that Edward Thorpe used to use it, but he was old school and there have been so many innovations since then.

 

For example, if you play 5 games of poker that are within your bankroll instead of one you are diversifying away some of the risk. On the other hand, when you try to do this with stocks there is a correlation of every single security to every single other security and you need to acknowledge this other wise you will loose a lot of money.

 

It's also important to pay attention to skewness in return distributions (not accounted for in the kelly criteria) and Kurtosis (which Long Term Capital Management ignored and caused them to be ruined).

 

Here are two popular books on portfolio management:

 

Managing Investment Portfolios: A Dynamic Process (CFA Institute Investment Series)

 

The CFA institute publications are usually very good but this book includes extra types of portfolio management which you might not need.

 

You may want to look at this one which is cheaper and its highly rated:

The Intelligent Asset Allocator: How to Build Your Portfolio to Maximize Returns and Minimize Risk

 

 

You should realize that a lot of the theory that is in these can actually be applied to modern portfolio theory. I also highly recommend that you look at some of Edward Thorp's papers, although they are highly outdated.

 

[http://edwardothorp.com/id10.html]Edward Thorps publications[/url]

 

 

Hopefully that helps!

 

-Silentdud

Edited by silentdud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a modified Ralph Vince optimal-f that I call Ultimate-F, because it avoids the high risk of ruin. It is much better than the Kelly formula and still compounds your results dramatically. YES, it works great with 45% or even 40% as long as your CPC Index is greater than 1.2.

 

 

Hello everyone,

 

I am currently reading about the Kelly formula on various website.

I now understand better that money management is a powerful tool to use when trading.

 

However something escapes me:

Assuming one has a trading system tat delivers a positive expectancy BUT there are fewer winning trades than losing trades, how to use the kelly formula??

 

e.g:

 

winning trades : 45%

losing trades : 55%

 

average win: 2,000

average loss: 1,000

 

expectancy is positive with : 0.45 * 2,000 - 0.55 * 1,000 = 350

 

Yet the K% would be negative because there are only 45% winning trades.

 

K% = (0.45 - 0.55) / 2 (where 2 is derived from 2,000 / 1,000)

 

Is there a more "refined/updated" Kelly formula that addresses this issue or this kind of bet should be considered a bad trade and should be avoided ?

 

Thanks!

Edited by MadMarketScientist
removed marketing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see a few problems with optimal-f from just a quick look at it though. It is guilty of the same problem that problem that the Kelly criterion is, i.e. not looking at the instances around the mean, only at the estimated values. Does the modified version fix this?? Do you have any links describing its calculation?

 

As far as I can tell it is only useful for ball parking and quick, on the spot math.

 

I looked at this for information on calculating the original "optimal" f.

Contango: Optimal f

 

Thank you.

Silentdud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a chart of the results ... I can't reveal the calculations, as, unlike Vince, mine is proprietary and I offer it to my students without revealing the code. My code uses the actual trade values and calculates the number of shares to put on for the next trade. To use the code you must have a minimum of 30 actual trades to put into the spreadhseet.

Sunny

 

I can see a few problems with optimal-f from just a quick look at it though. It is guilty of the same problem that problem that the Kelly criterion is, i.e. not looking at the instances around the mean, only at the estimated values. Does the modified version fix this?? Do you have any links describing its calculation?

 

As far as I can tell it is only useful for ball parking and quick, on the spot math.

 

I looked at this for information on calculating the original "optimal" f.

Contango: Optimal f

 

Thank you.

Silentdud

Edited by MadMarketScientist
removed marketing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used Kelly for strategy which trades by single instrument, I see that perfomance became better only on 10%-20%. is it normal?, or it should gives better upgrates for perfomance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used Kelly for strategy which trades by single instrument, I see that perfomance became better only on 10%-20%. is it normal?, or it should gives better upgrates for perfomance?

It's not really improving your returns, i.e. your immediate ones, it should be improving them over time, but the idea is the same as controlling and making sure your capital reserve isnt depleted so much that you can't regrow it.

You may want to look at the Safety first criteria. If you are looking for simple management that could be up your alley. It depends on how much money that you are managing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with using the Kelly formula, or any other formula that considers closed trades is that there is no consideration of what happens DURING the trade - in other words, the drawdown that can and does occur while waiting for the system to close out of the position.

 

Not only is there the drawdown that happens during one trade, but there is the accumulated drawdown from a series of trades. Even if your system produced 100% profitable trades on a closed trade basis, if the intra-trade drawdown is large, it is going to cause you much grief and it is likely you will bail on your trade and system well before your system pulls you out.

 

I use TradeStation to backtest my systems, and always look at the Strategy Performance Report. Then I look at the Max Drawdown Intra-day Peak to Valley calculation.

 

I then allocate 10x this number to trade 1 futures contract. This way, when this drawdown occurs again (and it WILL) I will only be down 10% in my account equity - a number I have found I can handle without getting extremely upset. If your account is small, you might be able to handle up to 30% drawdown before you panic, but as your account size increases, it becomes increasingly more difficult to take drawdown of this magnitude.

 

If you get extremely upset, and everyone has a different point where this occurs - but it does and will occur, you will 1) exit your trade at the wrong time, 2) be unable to sleep, 3) stop trading your system, or 4) some other irrational behavior. Have you ever just said, "I can't take this anymore", and just sold everything?

 

If you are overleveraged and trading futures, you may just run out of equity and get a margin call - and that's the end of your trading either permanently or temporarily.

 

The trouble with a system that shows a 2:1 profit factor, that is, winning trades make double the losing trades, but you have fewer than 50% winning trades, is that you have a lot of losing trades - tough to handle emotionally. Also, the winning trades come from a subset of the whole universe of closed trades, and this might mean that the winners were based on some unusual price behavior not llikely to occur in the future.

 

The ideal system has maximum gains and minimum drawdown, and ideally, seldom has a losing day.

 

The simplest example of a system that is almost impossible to trade, yet looks great on paper (compute the Kelly formula) , is a buy and hold. It may have 1 profitable trade,and no losing trades. However, the intra-day drawdown peak to valley might be HUGE. That's what will bury you as a trader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Mammy Yokum said: "Truer words were never spoke."

The larger your trade size and the higher the account value, the more likely you are to sabotage your system.

 

 

The problem with using the Kelly formula, or any other formula that considers closed trades is that there is no consideration of what happens DURING the trade - in other words, the drawdown that can and does occur while waiting for the system to close out of the position.

 

Not only is there the drawdown that happens during one trade, but there is the accumulated drawdown from a series of trades. Even if your system produced 100% profitable trades on a closed trade basis, if the intra-trade drawdown is large, it is going to cause you much grief and it is likely you will bail on your trade and system well before your system pulls you out.

 

I use TradeStation to backtest my systems, and always look at the Strategy Performance Report. Then I look at the Max Drawdown Intra-day Peak to Valley calculation.

 

I then allocate 10x this number to trade 1 futures contract. This way, when this drawdown occurs again (and it WILL) I will only be down 10% in my account equity - a number I have found I can handle without getting extremely upset. If your account is small, you might be able to handle up to 30% drawdown before you panic, but as your account size increases, it becomes increasingly more difficult to take drawdown of this magnitude.

 

If you get extremely upset, and everyone has a different point where this occurs - but it does and will occur, you will 1) exit your trade at the wrong time, 2) be unable to sleep, 3) stop trading your system, or 4) some other irrational behavior. Have you ever just said, "I can't take this anymore", and just sold everything?

 

If you are overleveraged and trading futures, you may just run out of equity and get a margin call - and that's the end of your trading either permanently or temporarily.

 

The trouble with a system that shows a 2:1 profit factor, that is, winning trades make double the losing trades, but you have fewer than 50% winning trades, is that you have a lot of losing trades - tough to handle emotionally. Also, the winning trades come from a subset of the whole universe of closed trades, and this might mean that the winners were based on some unusual price behavior not llikely to occur in the future.

 

The ideal system has maximum gains and minimum drawdown, and ideally, seldom has a losing day.

 

The simplest example of a system that is almost impossible to trade, yet looks great on paper (compute the Kelly formula) , is a buy and hold. It may have 1 profitable trade,and no losing trades. However, the intra-day drawdown peak to valley might be HUGE. That's what will bury you as a trader.

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.