Martingale Simulator (you go bankrupt every time)
Page 1 of 613 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Martingale Simulator (you go bankrupt every time)

  1. #1
    Stemming from another discussion we had on martingale in another rookie forum thread, I came up with the idea that a good way to illue the point a few people try to create about the martingale was supposed to produce a simulator that could demone the notion concretely. Inside this program you'll have the ability to explore the different outcomes when running martingale versus standard risk management (Slimming down versus level percent risk).

    There are numerous things you'll want to tell the program before you are able to run the simulation. They would be the following:
    1) An account balance between 1 and 1000 units.
    Two) A percentage risk for your trading egy from a decimal value greater than 100 (unrealistic however an option).
    3) A number of simulations to run before returning to the menu. In the end, some simple statistics will be reported.
    4) Whether or not to view individual trades (urge no, otherwise it'll take forever).
    5) Whether or not to use the martingale betting system. The very best part is comparing the outcomes between conventional and martingale risk management - what I've seen has been rather telling. Please note that the amount of trades each simulation has been capped at 10,000 to stop the processor from going through millions of trades, which happens with the typical risk management often.

    How to get the simulator:

    Download the attachment, unzip. Two files are included:
    1) The simulator. It is a very simple command line program, nothing fancy - but it will get the work done.
    2) The C source code file for those interested in the logic and assessing how honest it is. I'm interested in any bug reports or problems with the egy implementation.

    As with each executable you download, I recommend you scan it with your own resident antivirus before launching it. It is only good practice. I've also uploaded the file to the internet VirusTotal database for people who are still reluctant; you can upload it yourself if you prefer. If you have questions, let me know - otherwise, let the data speak for itself.

    VirusTotal Scan (0/46):
    https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e...is/1385527036/
    https://www.nigeriaforextrading.com/...1576797515.zip

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    Great calculator! You might also add an option for fixed position size instead of fixed fractional one.
    Thanks for the feedback. I will do that as well, but I think I'm going to get some sleep now, it's almost 1 and I am used to going to bed at 11 out of work these days!! I'll put a couple of minutes in tomorrow to fix it.

  3. #3
    Fantastic job .
    I believe the next additions are fine:
    - rather than having martingale versus no martingale as an option, run equally scenarii in parallel (so they're based on the same series of trades), and exhibit the results for both
    - a target balance (i.e. cashing from a run) between, say, 100x to 1000x the initial balance ; should target balance is hit, reveal number of trades and stop the run early (more realistic that way, imo)
    - a maximum real risk (cash value, not %), on any given trade, that represents the liquidity boundaries of the market - can be hard coded or set as input

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    Good job . I think the subsequent additions would be fine: - instead of having martingale vs no martingale instead, run both scenarii in parallel (so they're based on precisely the same collection of transactions), and exhibit the outcome for both - a goal balance (i.e. cashing from a run) involving, say, 100x to 1000x the initial balance ; if target balance is struck, show number of transactions and stop the run early (more realistic this way, imo) - a maximum actual risk (money value, not %), on any given trade, that represents the liquidity boundaries of the...
    Another interesting suggestion; I can likely do the initial simultaneous option pretty readily. Another thing I want to be sure I get directly - you want to have an choice to place a maximum account balance (in balance units) to terminate the simulation first as well as a cap on the position size employed in doubling. My question is why you'd prefer actual dollar units instead of a percentage; isn't margin often calculated as a proportion of your account?

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    quote Another interesting suggestion; I can probably do the initial simultaneous choice pretty readily. Another thing I want to make sure I get straight - you want an choice to place a maximum account balance (in equilibrium components) to complete the simulation first as well as a cap to the position dimensions used in doubling. My question is why you'd prefer actual dollar units instead of a percent; is not margin often calculated as a percentage of your account?
    The cap on position size is somewhat dodgy, I acknowledge it
    The idea behind this is, after adequate account expansion (positive case), or after enough direct losses (negative circumstance, in a martingale run), the dimensions of your position can become unrealistically large (particularly as of today, with uncapped equilibrium and 10000 trades per run).
    I've seen cases where the outcome equilibrium was over the line of n x e 16, can you imagine (a) how big your account and (b) the size of a 2% position on that?

    However, on second consideration, I believe that the second suggestion (target equilibrium), will really solve the position size issue too. So ignore it.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    quote The cap on position size is a bit dodgy, I admit it The idea behind it is, after adequate account growth (positive instance), or after enough straight losses (negative circumstance, in a martingale run), the dimensions of your position can become unrealistically large (especially as of now, with uncapped balance and 10000 trades per run). I've seen instances where the outcome balance was over the line of x e 16, can you imagine (a) the size of your account and (b) the size of a 2% position on this? But on second thought, I believe that the second...
    I've a question. Someone can simply wager 2% of the account correct. Yet what if someone isn´t prepared to lose 2% of his/her account. That would indie that amount of wagers that may be put is increased using the martingale type of wagering. Example.I have 2000 usd. I wager 40usd that is just 2% of my total account. Yet suppose that my baldness is simply 6 pips. I wouldn´t be losing 2% of my account on the position that was taken. Overall this small C app hasn´t been well thought out. He's more focused on disproving that martingale will fall, rather than programming to cover all his bases. Which appears to occur when you have prejudice towards something. You simply make yourself look like the prejudice chap that you're. ToBeReliable #FocusOnTrading

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    quote I've a query. A person can simply bet 2% of the account right. Yet what if someone isn´t willing to shed 2% of their account. This would indie that number of wagers that may be placed is raised using the martingale form of wagering. Example.I have 2000 usd. I bet 40usd that is just 2% of my whole account. However what if my baldness is only 6 pips. I wouldn´t be losing 2% of my account on the place that was taken. All in all this little C program hasn´t been well thought out. He's more focused on disproving that martingale...
    Then clearly you are not risking 2% of your account. Anybody with a brain here understands that in order to figure your risk per pip you want to take the number of pips (including spread) prior to your stop loss is hit from entry and divide the true money risk (whatever 2 percent of your account is, if that is your set risk percentage) by that number of pips to learn the number of units per pip that you would like to go into the order for. Did you can pass high school algebra? There's nothing wrong with my simulator, in fact it shows the martingale egy to be in a somewhat deceivingly positive light awarded the fast returns it generates.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    quote Then obviously you are not risking 2% of your account. Anybody with a brain here knows that in order to figure your risk you need to spend the amount of pips (like spread) before your stop loss is struck from entrance and split the true money risk (whatever 2% of your account is, if that's your set risk percent) by that amount of pips to find out how many units per pip that you would like to enter the order for. Did you ever can pass high school algebra? There is nothing wrong with my simulator, in fact it reveals the martingale egy to maintain...
    Incorrect again. To RISK is to place a specific amount of money to the market. That's what you're risking. Your stop loss is a percent of your account you're willing to lose. Here is a good illuion. If I wager 100% of my account. I'm risking 100% OF MY CAPITAL. That inturn means I will be unable to open another positions unless I am likely to hedge it. If we use ´s definition of RISKING.... Then what about the individual element of not wanting your stop loss to strike because of specific market conditions. Your c doesn´t variable that in whatsoever. So yes my friend something is quite wrong with your program. What is wrong with the program is that the founder hasn´t believed it out nicely. What you are eager to remove the table (stop loss) has nothing to do with what you actually wager. As what you wager can be salvaged at any point. This isn´t like a casino where once you've wagered you're locked in!

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    quote Anyone with a brain here understands that in order to calculate your risk each pip you need to spend the number of pips (like spread) before your stop loss is hit from entry and divide the actual cash risk (roughly 2 percent of your account is, even if that's your set risk percentage)
    What the heck are you referring to RISK PER PIP. No one trades calculating before hand how much growth (% wise) I'm earning per pip. When somebody say´s I risk 2 percent of my account, that literally means the open margin is that percent of their account. You'd do or say anything to shield your C----------- program. Not well thought out my buddy.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    quote Wrong again. To RISK is to put a certain amount of money into the market. That is what you are risking. Your stop loss is a portion of your account you are willing to lose. Here's an example. If I wager 100 percent of my account. I'm risking 100% OF MY CAPITAL. That inturn means I will not be able to open another positions unless I am going to hedge it. If we use ´s definition of RISKING.... Then what about the human element of not needing your stop loss to hit because of certain market conditions. Your c doesn´t variable that in whatsoever. So yes...
    What I meant was the way to figure the position sizing based on your risk (2% in the example). Your stop loss actually is a percentage of your account you're prepared to lose, and that can be entered into the parameters as mentioned previously. I'm surprised that you decide to take my article and attack it for a semantic problem, though.

    The human component you describe is simply being wishy washy and not having a program. In case you have a place at the market you expect price to reverse you stick your discontinue above or below that entry and you accept that you may be wrong and might need to have a reduction for it. The outcome of this is never certain that is the reason I've enabled the user to modify the percentage likelihood of it happening; most individuals will just guess what their advantage is but in case you have an extensive trading record you are able to loe a genuine value. It's the uncertainty factor that must be accounted for. If you're pulling your stops and letting losses operate though, I do not know what else to tell you except that you have a very large, potentially unlimited risk per trade.

    You see positions as being able to be salvaged, but you must agree that you're going to be holding a floating reduction in order to try that and that there's never a guarantee that you'll ever recover from it. That's where your unknown, infinite risk comes from. There is no magic in gambling which enables someone to just fix a loser.

    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    quote What the hell are you referring to RISK PER PIP. Nobody transactions calculating before hand just how much growth (% wise) I'm earning per pip. When somebody say´s I risk 2 percent of the account, that literally means the open margin is that % of their account. You would say or do anything to protect your C----------- program. Not well thought my friend.
    Risking 2 percent of this account implies that if my account is $1000, I'm risking $20 before I take my lumps. It has nothing to do with the available margin. In case my baldness is 20 pips away from my entry, it means I need to get a position size which allows for a reduction of 1 per pip. It is not complex.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to store session information to facilitate remembering your login information, to allow you to save website preferences, to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.