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

    • MNST Monster Beverage stock, top of range breakout above 60.45, from Stocks to Watch at https://stockconsultant.com/?MNST
    • there is no avoiding loses to be honest, its just how the market is. you win some and hopefully more, but u do lose some. 
    • Date: 11th July 2025.   Demand For Gold Rises As Trump Announces Tariffs!   Gold prices rose significantly throughout the week as investors took advantage of the 2.50% lower entry level. Investors also return to the safe-haven asset as the US trade policy continues to escalate. As a result, investors are taking a more dovish tone. The ‘risk-off’ appetite is also something which can be seen within the stock market. The NASDAQ on Thursday took a 0.90% dive within only 30 minutes.   Trade Tensions Escalate President Trump has been teasing with new tariffs throughout the week. However, the tariffs were confirmed on Thursday. A 35% tariff on Canadian imports starting August 1st, along with 50% tariffs on copper and goods from Brazil. Some experts are advising that Brazil has been specifically targeted due to its association with the BRICS.   However, the President has not directly associated the tariffs with BRICS yet. According to President Trump, Brazil is targeting US technology companies and carrying out a ‘witch hunt’against former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a close ally who is currently facing prosecution for allegedly attempting to overturn the 2022 Brazilian election.   Although Brazil is one of the largest and fastest-growing economies in the Americas, it is not the main concern for investors. Investors are more concerned about Tariffs on Canada. The White House said it will impose a 35% tariff on Canadian imports, effective August 1st, raised from the earlier 25% rate. This covers most goods, with exceptions under USMCA and exemptions for Canadian companies producing within the US.   It is also vital for investors to note that Canada is among the US;’s top 3 trading partners. The increase was justified by Trump citing issues like the trade deficit, Canada’s handling of fentanyl trafficking, and perceived unfair trade practices.   The President is also threatening new measures against the EU. These moves caused US and European stock futures to fall nearly 1%, while the Dollar rose and commodity prices saw small gains. However, the main benefactor was Silver and Gold, which are the two best-performing metals of the day.   How Will The Fed Impact Gold? The FOMC indicated that the number of members warming up to the idea of interest rate cuts is increasing. If the Fed takes a dovish tone, the price of Gold may further rise. In the meantime, the President pushing for a 3% rate cut sparked talk of a more dovish Fed nominee next year and raised worries about future inflation.   Meanwhile, jobless claims dropped for the fourth straight week, coming in better than expected and supporting the view that the labour market remains strong after last week’s solid payroll report. Markets still expect two rate cuts this year, but rate futures show most investors see no change at the next Fed meeting. Gold is expected to finish the week mostly flat.       Gold 15-Minute Chart     If the price of Gold increases above $3,337.50, buy signals are likely to materialise again. However, the price is currently retracing, meaning traders are likely to wait for regained momentum before entering further buy trades. According to HSBC, they expect an average price of $3,215 in 2025 (up from $3,015) and $3,125 in 2026, with projections showing a volatile range between $3,100 and $3,600   Key Takeaway Points: Gold Rises on Safe-Haven Demand. Gold gained as investors reacted to rising trade tensions and market volatility. Canada Tariffs Spark Concern. A 35% tariff on Canadian imports drew attention due to Canada’s key trade role. Fed Dovish Shift Supports Gold. Growing expectations of rate cuts and Trump’s push for a 3% cut boosted the gold outlook. Gold Eyes Breakout Above $3,337.5. Price is consolidating; a move above $3,337.50 could trigger new buy signals. Always trade with strict risk management. Your capital is the single most important aspect of your trading business.   Please note that times displayed based on local time zone and are from time of writing this report.   Click HERE to access the full HFM Economic calendar.   Want to learn to trade and analyse the markets? Join our webinars and get analysis and trading ideas combined with better understanding of how markets work. Click HERE to register for FREE!   Click HERE to READ more Market news.   Michalis Efthymiou HFMarkets   Disclaimer: This material is provided as a general marketing communication for information purposes only and does not constitute an independent investment research. Nothing in this communication contains, or should be considered as containing, an investment advice or an investment recommendation or a solicitation for the purpose of buying or selling of any financial instrument. All information provided is gathered from reputable sources and any information containing an indication of past performance is not a guarantee or reliable indicator of future performance. Users acknowledge that any investment in Leveraged Products is characterized by a certain degree of uncertainty and that any investment of this nature involves a high level of risk for which the users are solely responsible and liable. We assume no liability for any loss arising from any investment made based on the information provided in this communication. This communication must not be reproduced or further distributed without our prior written permission.
    • Back in the early 2000s, Netflix mailed DVDs to subscribers.   It wasn’t sexy—but it was smart. No late fees. No driving to Blockbuster.   People subscribed because they were lazy. Investors bought the stock because they realized everyone else is lazy too.   Those who saw the future in that red envelope? They could’ve caught a 10,000%+ move.   Another story…   Back in the mid-2000s, Amazon launched Prime.   It wasn’t flashy—but it was fast.   Free two-day shipping. No minimums. No hassle.   People subscribed because they were impatient. Investors bought the stock because they realized everyone hates waiting.   Those who saw the future in that speedy little yellow button? They could’ve caught another 10,000%+ move.   Finally…   Back in 2011, Bitcoin was trading under $10.   It wasn’t regulated—but it worked.   No bank. No middleman. Just wallet to wallet.   People used it to send money. Investors bought it because they saw the potential.   Those who saw something glimmering in that strange orange coin? They could’ve caught a 100,000%+ move.   The people who made those calls weren’t fortune tellers. They just noticed something simple before others did.   A better way. A quiet shift. A small edge. An asymmetric bet.   The red envelope fixed late fees. The yellow button fixed waiting. The orange coin gave billions a choice.   Of course, these types of gains are rare. And they happen only once in a blue moon. That’s exactly why it’s important to notice when the conditions start to look familiar.   Not after the move. Not once it's on CNBC. But in the quiet build-up— before the surface breaks.   Enter the Blue Button Please read more here: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/netflix-amazon-bitcoin-blue  Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
    • What These Attacks Look Like There are several ways you could get hacked. And the threats compound by the day.   Here’s a quick rundown:   Phishing: Fake emails from your “bank.” Click the link, give your password—game over.   Ransomware: Malware that locks your files and demands crypto. Pay up, or it’s gone.   DDoS: Overwhelm a website with traffic until it crashes. Like 10,000 bots blocking the door. Often used by nations.   Man-in-the-Middle: Hackers intercept your messages on public WiFi and read or change them.   Social Engineering: Hackers pose as IT or drop infected USB drives labeled “Payroll.”   You don’t need to be “important” to be a target.   You just need to be online.   What You Can Do (Without Buying a Bunker) You don’t have to be tech-savvy.   You just need to stop being low-hanging fruit.   Here’s how:   Use a YubiKey (physical passkey device) or Authenticator app – Ditch text message 2FA. SIM swaps are real. Hackers often have people on the inside at telecom companies.   Use a password manager (with Yubikey) – One unique password per account. Stop using your dog’s name.   Update your devices – Those annoying updates patch real security holes. Use them.   Back up your files – If ransomware hits, you don’t want your important documents held hostage.   Avoid public WiFi for sensitive stuff – Or use a VPN.   Think before you click – Emails that feel “urgent” are often fake. Go to the websites manually for confirmation.   Consider Starlink in case the internet goes down – I think it’s time for me to make the leap. Don’t Panic. Prepare. (Then Invest.)   I spent an hour in that basement bar reading about cyberattacks—and watching real-world systems fall apart like dominos.   The internet going down used to be an inconvenience. Now, it’s a warning.   Cyberwar isn’t coming. It’s here.   And the next time your internet goes out, it might not just be your router.   Don’t panic. Prepare.   And maybe keep a backup plan in your back pocket. Like a local basement bar with good bourbon—and working WiFi.   As usual, we’re on the lookout for more opportunities in cybersecurity. Stay tuned.   Author: Chris Campbell (AltucherConfidential) 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.