Recovery system with a different twist

User avatar
Iamshakey
Trader
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:29 am
Location: Midwest USA

Re: Recovery system with a different twist

Post by Iamshakey »

esquire wrote:I did some more calculations and thought experiments, and the conclusion about all lot size ideas is pretty simple:

It works as long as your system is any good

If your system makes profit, and you add a recovery system like this, you will make more money (assumed that you won't trade extremly big lot sizes). It's simply because you trade bigger lot sizes, multiplied with an average win = more money.

It's rather rediculous to put efford into developing things like this. This is assuming you should look at trades as a bundle but you shouldn't (well maybe for psychology but not for the math side). All trades are indepentent and that's the way they should be threated. You should only increase the lot size if you reduce the risk or - for whatever reason - believe there is a bigger probability of winning.
Perhaps a system like this might be a waste of time for many. It would be nice if one never had to bother with it. I use it for the psycholigical aspect, since this has always been my weakness. Even reasonable losses on account balance have always been daunting to me. This way, I keep focused on the profit of each pair rather than what the account balance is doing. Kind of gives me a little faith.
This has worked very well for me.

Not quite sure what you mean by "bundle". The way I use this for manual trading, each pair and each trade is traded individually. I keep track on a spreadsheet of all the pairs I trade. Each trading session I sit down for, I print out the spreadsheet to remind me of which pairs are in the system, and for what step in the system is done next. I often have some pairs that aren't in the sytem very often. Another pair may get a lot of signals in any given week, and my go through the system in a few days with only a few trades on it. Another pair might not have a signal for a long time, and it my be weeks before enough signals go through to finish that pair.

I also try to let profits run for max pips. But I keep stops pretty hard. The only time I close all open trades is when the floating profit is too good to be true, and I close before I can fcuk it up. Does'nt happen to me very often.

This is really a matter of record keeping. I am currently trading the marauder system over on activeboard, and have expanded my spreadsheet to about 20 or so pairs. This may prove too daunting and I might have to pare it down.

As for with an EA, I envision a simple linear approach with the EA attached to individual pairs via magic # , and the recovery being used as needed with each pair. The EA should only concern itself with recovering the individual pair to which it is attached.

I suggest TRYING IT manually with your favorite system. Pick a pair, trade it for pennies, and keep track with pencil a paper. You may find it is a pretty stress free addition to your system. Then again, you may find it unnecessary. :lol:

Yours, Shake
It's Better to Burn Out, than it is to Rust
esquire
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:29 pm

Re: Recovery system with a different twist

Post by esquire »

Hi shake,

Thanks for your explanation. First off all, i was only responding to the lot-sizing part. Your system of writing things down might work perfect for you, so I'm not criticizing that in any way (nor am i critisizing lot sizing if you are using it for psycholigical aspects, everyone is different there).

What i am critisizing is the mathamatical aspect of this lot size thingy (just as margingale systems etc), or making 'bundles of trades'. By this I mean that you select a bunch of trades which has completly nothing to do with eachother, and then multipling your lotsize depending on what happened on previous trades (which are completely independent).

Let's take 3 situations: 1. you trade everything with 1 lot, 2. you trade every lot with above system and therby average on 3 lots a trade 3. you trade with 3 lots.

System 2 will outperform system 1 with 300%, simply because the average lotzise is 3 times as big. But the risk of ruin becomes really really big (i simulated this). Instead using system 3 will give you the same results as system 2, only with a smaller risk of ruin.

What you SHOULD do instead is analyzing your results and create an lot-size strategy around that. These 2 results for instance:
http://www.myfxbook.com/members/mag_ft/ ... lor/230713
http://www.myfxbook.com/members/ROBST3R ... ors/228271

Have increadibly low Z-scores, which means loses are highly likely to followed by another loss (same goes for winners). A good strategy would be to trade with 0.5 lots after a loss and 2 lots after a win (for example).

Hope that clearifies :)

Cheers,
Simion
MiTija

Re: Recovery system with a different twist

Post by MiTija »

esquire wrote:Hi shake,

Thanks for your explanation. First off all, i was only responding to the lot-sizing part. Your system of writing things down might work perfect for you, so I'm not criticizing that in any way (nor am i critisizing lot sizing if you are using it for psycholigical aspects, everyone is different there).

What i am critisizing is the mathamatical aspect of this lot size thingy (just as margingale systems etc), or making 'bundles of trades'. By this I mean that you select a bunch of trades which has completly nothing to do with eachother, and then multipling your lotsize depending on what happened on previous trades (which are completely independent).

Let's take 3 situations: 1. you trade everything with 1 lot, 2. you trade every lot with above system and therby average on 3 lots a trade 3. you trade with 3 lots.

System 2 will outperform system 1 with 300%, simply because the average lotzise is 3 times as big. But the risk of ruin becomes really really big (i simulated this). Instead using system 3 will give you the same results as system 2, only with a smaller risk of ruin.

What you SHOULD do instead is analyzing your results and create an lot-size strategy around that. These 2 results for instance:
http://www.myfxbook.com/members/mag_ft/ ... lor/230713
http://www.myfxbook.com/members/ROBST3R ... ors/228271

Have increadibly low Z-scores, which means loses are highly likely to followed by another loss (same goes for winners). A good strategy would be to trade with 0.5 lots after a loss and 2 lots after a win (for example).

Hope that clearifies :)

Cheers,
Simion
Hi Simion,

I believe from a scientific / mathematical point of view, that your analysis is 100% correct. Well Done!

From an emotional / behavioral point a view, I believe that these types of recovery systems are beloved by traders because it gives them a good feeling to be doing something when the market is moving in a negative way. It has been my experience, that it can be very difficult for some traders, to sit back and relax during a series of losses. Even though we all know, that sometimes a series of losses is going to happen. For me, I try to limit my celebrations of wins to about 5 minutes and my worries over losses to about 1 minute. This works for me. Your mileage may vary.

In the end, I believe that it is up to each trader to chose system 1, 2 or 3 according to both their financial and emotional predilections.

Best Regards,


MiTija
User avatar
Iamshakey
Trader
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:29 am
Location: Midwest USA

Re: Recovery system with a different twist

Post by Iamshakey »

MiTija wrote:
esquire wrote:Hi shake,

Thanks for your explanation. First off all, i was only responding to the lot-sizing part. Your system of writing things down might work perfect for you, so I'm not criticizing that in any way (nor am i critisizing lot sizing if you are using it for psycholigical aspects, everyone is different there).

What i am critisizing is the mathamatical aspect of this lot size thingy (just as margingale systems etc), or making 'bundles of trades'. By this I mean that you select a bunch of trades which has completly nothing to do with eachother, and then multipling your lotsize depending on what happened on previous trades (which are completely independent).

Let's take 3 situations: 1. you trade everything with 1 lot, 2. you trade every lot with above system and therby average on 3 lots a trade 3. you trade with 3 lots.

System 2 will outperform system 1 with 300%, simply because the average lotzise is 3 times as big. But the risk of ruin becomes really really big (i simulated this). Instead using system 3 will give you the same results as system 2, only with a smaller risk of ruin.

What you SHOULD do instead is analyzing your results and create an lot-size strategy around that. These 2 results for instance:
http://www.myfxbook.com/members/mag_ft/ ... lor/230713
http://www.myfxbook.com/members/ROBST3R ... ors/228271

Have increadibly low Z-scores, which means loses are highly likely to followed by another loss (same goes for winners). A good strategy would be to trade with 0.5 lots after a loss and 2 lots after a win (for example).

Hope that clearifies :)

Cheers,
Simion
Hi Simion,

I believe from a scientific / mathematical point of view, that your analysis is 100% correct. Well Done!

From an emotional / behavioral point a view, I believe that these types of recovery systems are beloved by traders because it gives them a good feeling to be doing something when the market is moving in a negative way. It has been my experience, that it can be very difficult for some traders, to sit back and relax during a series of losses. Even though we all know, that sometimes a series of losses is going to happen. For me, I try to limit my celebrations of wins to about 5 minutes and my worries over losses to about 1 minute. This works for me. Your mileage may vary.

In the end, I believe that it is up to each trader to chose system 1, 2 or 3 according to both their financial and emotional predilections.

Best Regards,


MiTija

All points well taken, and I get your gist, and even agree for the most part.
I have been trading for 5 years, and actually moderately successful. BUT, it's the 1 minute worry part that has always kept me from being MORE SUCCESSFUL. I don't become stressed really, but just too DETERMINED. There's been times I thought of using a fly crawling across the screen as an indicator!! :lol:

Thanks MiTija and Simon,

Shake
It's Better to Burn Out, than it is to Rust
User avatar
Iamshakey
Trader
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:29 am
Location: Midwest USA

Re: Recovery system with a different twist

Post by Iamshakey »

Khalaad wrote:Not entirely topical, but about blackjack:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... _page=true#

Khalid
Fun article. Thanks for posting, Khalid :lol:
It's Better to Burn Out, than it is to Rust
passgo
Trader
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:14 pm

Re: Recovery system with a different twist

Post by passgo »

Have read through this thread and it brings to mind a thread I read some years ago which often comes back to mind espcially after a couple of losing trades! The thread was started to test parrondo's paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrondo%27s_paradox) which suggests a losing strategy that wins. Parrondo developed it from observing the saw tooth ratchet effect. Over the years, I have read of a number of people testing it in trading and the jury is still out.

The guy who started the thread which I think has now disappeared in the mists of time seemed to find a way to use the paradox - however he never fully explained how he did that. I remember thinking at the time he had found a way to combine a sequence of trades with different probabilities and different R:R's to produce the ratchet effect of parrondo's paradox. I reproduce the extracts that I took from his thread to see if someone can see through to his solution.
A new idea for both a trading method and a Money Management approach. So this is my game.

The structure of the Trades are based on the Parrondo Paradox.

The money management is a straight fixed ratio of 2 % each trade, including transaction cost and 10 % total at risk (i.e. 5 trades at any one time) In fact it is a trade that relies on one High win ratio and one poor win ratio. This is what creates the ratchet effect. It is a method that should work very well in a trending market, but should work well in a ranging market.

Only makes one trade per day

Running on EURCHF

I have structured the inputs right now as

Trade A = (p and 1-p) = about 0.48 prob.
Trade B1=(p2 and 1-p2) = about 0.10 prob
Trade B2 = (p3 and 1-p3) = about 0.73 prob. (note, this one needs work)
The switching is a bit rough right now, defined as
Balance / (Modus>1) = integer for B1 Otherwise B2.
As of now the modus is at 3.

Bear in mind this is win rate, not overall profitability of each trade/game. Therefore, the R:R is drastically different for each of the trade/games played.

The sequence that I am testing right now is ABBAB...

There is a difference in the trades I am making and the pure Parrondo model in that, the prob.s cannot be established with complete accuracy, because of the nature of traded markets. So, they are an approximation of several trades/games played over several sessions of the sets

This could all change in a heart beat, because markets are dynamic. However to a certain extent that is accounted for in the setting of the trades at the beginning of each session.

Now Game A is a given - It will lose. An easy example is if you flip a coin to go long or short then there's a 50% chance of winning (assuming you always reach an equally set TP and SL) and the spread will tip the system into the overall losing side (aka negative expectancy)

However, having said that, the way I have set the B1 and B2 up are that they are win rates, but the R:R is not necessarily equal. In fact the R:R on B2 is higher. I think ultimately this will be the stumbling block to get past to apply it. Now, with a modus > 3, if I recall, that should favor B2. What I am looking at is how the performance of the B1 occasionally and the A affect the performance of B2. Is it possible to maintain some of the win rate and at the same time improve the R:R?

The premise I have been working from is that even though B2 has .73 prob, it has a higher risk. So it would not be in my best interest to play that game only. because the High risk would catch up to me. I am concerned that my logic may be flawed. It seems as though my approach would be addressing the Money management side of this set of games and not really addressing the overall outcome probability. Having said that, I know that no amount money management can change a negative expectancy.
In that the "blackjack" recovery system is a sequence of trades, I felt maybe in this paradox lies an idea for adapting that sequence, so I hope this is not a curve ball. If it is, please ignore it but I am sure there is someone reading this thread who can see if the ratchet effect posited by parrondo's paradox could be used to strengthen the chances of recovery. I would really like to lie this idea to to bed one way or another!
User avatar
tex
Trader
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:27 am

Re: Recovery system with a different twist

Post by tex »

Hey Guys, hey Shakey,

is there an EA for this already ? I think this kind of recovery system would be a good thing for an EA.
garyfritz

Re: Recovery system with a different twist

Post by garyfritz »

Tex's post drew my attention to this old discussion...
esquire wrote:What you SHOULD do instead is analyzing your results and create an lot-size strategy around that. These 2 results for instance:
http://www.myfxbook.com/members/mag_ft/ ... lor/230713
http://www.myfxbook.com/members/ROBST3R ... ors/228271
Have increadibly low Z-scores, which means loses are highly likely to followed by another loss (same goes for winners). A good strategy would be to trade with 0.5 lots after a loss and 2 lots after a win (for example).
Does anyone know how to calculate this Z-score "streakiness" measure? All the references I can find for Z-score say it's a measure of how far an observation is above/below the mean.

I can invent a calculation that measures streakiness. If I look at an equity curve and calculate the P/L after each trade, then if sign(ThisTradePL) = sign(LastTradePL), return 1, else return 0. If the system has a strong tendency to have streaks of wins or losses, the average of all those values should be close to 1. If it never streaks, so a win is followed by a loss followed by a win etc, the average should be close to 0. You could use either of those results to modify your position size for the next trade: if it's close to 1, then use big size after a win & small size after a loss, and vice versa if it's close to 0. A value near 0.50 means it's pretty random so you can't benefit from sizing games.

I don't know if that calculation is as statistically valid as the Z-score myfxbook uses. Seems like it ought to be.
User avatar
gaheitman
Trader
Posts: 655
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:55 pm
Location: Richmond, VA, US

Re: Recovery system with a different twist

Post by gaheitman »

garyfritz wrote:Tex's post drew my attention to this old discussion...
esquire wrote:What you SHOULD do instead is analyzing your results and create an lot-size strategy around that. These 2 results for instance:
http://www.myfxbook.com/members/mag_ft/ ... lor/230713
http://www.myfxbook.com/members/ROBST3R ... ors/228271
Have increadibly low Z-scores, which means loses are highly likely to followed by another loss (same goes for winners). A good strategy would be to trade with 0.5 lots after a loss and 2 lots after a win (for example).
Does anyone know how to calculate this Z-score "streakiness" measure? All the references I can find for Z-score say it's a measure of how far an observation is above/below the mean.

I can invent a calculation that measures streakiness. If I look at an equity curve and calculate the P/L after each trade, then if sign(ThisTradePL) = sign(LastTradePL), return 1, else return 0. If the system has a strong tendency to have streaks of wins or losses, the average of all those values should be close to 1. If it never streaks, so a win is followed by a loss followed by a win etc, the average should be close to 0. You could use either of those results to modify your position size for the next trade: if it's close to 1, then use big size after a win & small size after a loss, and vice versa if it's close to 0. A value near 0.50 means it's pretty random so you can't benefit from sizing games.

I don't know if that calculation is as statistically valid as the Z-score myfxbook uses. Seems like it ought to be.
There's a bit on it here: http://articles.mql4.com/471

George
garyfritz

Re: Recovery system with a different twist

Post by garyfritz »

Thanks, George. So it looks like they invented their own measure and gave it an already-well-established name.

I'm not sure I'm interpreting their explanation right. I understand their R to be "the number of streaks of wins + number of streaks of losses." So for the series of blue +/- right after the Z-score formula, I think R is 7: 1 (9 wins), 2 (6 losses), 3 (1 win), 4 (3 losses), etc.

But if I use that definition of R, I get a Z-score of -1.21 on my test system, indicating about a 75% chance of a win following a loss and vice versa. That seems unlikely, since my "streakiniess" calculation on the same series returns 0.52, nearly random.

I think I prefer my measure. :-)
Post Reply

Return to “Trading Psychology & Money Management”