Thread: trading systems vs account size

Hi iandekoker,

I was just hoping to show that having a massive wallet didn't mean you were goign to have victory as Brian Hunter descovered and a number of other subprime traders of late. Capital is great however, yes it does allow you to lose more often and remain in the game longer than the capitalised trader but I don't believe it needs to be put before a trading platform. I look at it as a vehicle, the system is its engine and the funds is its oil. You can't get far without the oil but if you it's a sound engine and in top shape you'll get mileage than the usual cranky 1900's engine with the oil. You won't get far without an engine.

Well if we referring to the really big boys, then they do place trades so indiors aren't that much of a problem as mentioned before on this forum, so yes they do get in before the shorter timeframed traders using their indiors because they want them to the shorter timeframes. I don't compete with Lehman Bros. although I just go with the flow, we in separate locations, ones an investment bank and the other is a single trader.

There is loads of profitable egies on here for free, why try sell mine?
Besidesthis is a thread asking about system vs capital correct?
I just thought I'd share my view on it.

One of mine is merely RSI though. Plain and simple, but that's another ribbon, for another day.

Have a fantastic week iandekoker

*EDIT* iandekoker - I reread your answer to my post and noticed that you misread what intended. I was not saying my system has proven itself, I had been saying systems. I think my post clarifys what I intended though. As for holy grails, there aren't any and just the new and unexperienced try seek this Indianna Jones Trader myth. Losses are a part of this biz, my system has them but the winners outrun the losses or that I wouldn't be here. So on a personal note then, yes, for me personally, trading platform comes first. It'd be discipline however if we had to put something.

Originally Posted by ;

Hello,

Well I was just trying to show that using a massive wallet did not indicate you were goign to have success as Brian Hunter descovered and many other subprime traders of late. More capital is excellent however, yes it does permit you to shed and stay than the smaller trader but I do not believe it should be put before a trading system. I look at it as a car, the machine is its engine and the capital is its oil. You can not get far without the oil but if you it is a engine and in top shape you will get much better mileage compared to the usual 1900's engine with the same oil. You won't get very far without an engine.

Well when we talking about the big boys, they do place trades so indiors are not that much of an issue as mentioned earlier on this forum, so yes they do get in before the briefer timeframed traders using their indiors since they want them to the shorter timeframes. I don't compete with Lehman Bros. though I just go with the flow, we in separate areas, ones a investment bank and the other is a single trader.

There is plenty of profitable egies available for free, why try sell mine?
Besides, this is a thread asking about strategy versus capital right?
I just thought I would share my view on it.

I could confidently say that none of those trading strategies with this FF will be successful in the long run. That's why I started this thread. To show how one individual includes a trading system....but when u read through the hole thread you will see that he has changed his strategy 2 or 4 or 3 or more times....version1. . .version2. . .version3...I mean come on when a machine is so good why would you have to change it all of the time?????

One of mine is merely RSI though. Plain and simple, but that is yet another ribbon, for another day.

Have a fantastic week

*EDIT* - I reread your reply to my post and noticed that you misread what meant. I was not saying that my system has shown itself, I was saying systems. I think my post clarifys what I meant. In terms of holy grails, there are not just and any the new and unexperienced try seek this Indianna Jones Trader myth. Losses are a part of the biz, my machine has them but the declines are outrun by the winners or that I wouldn't be here. So on a personal note yes, for me personally, trading system comes first. If we needed to put something before most of them it'd be discipline.

I still cannot see how losing capital is part of a winning strategy....but anyway....different strokes for different folks

Originally Posted by ;

My endgame target is still 5-10percent per week eventually. Net. Consistently.

If anyone ever gets to the point where they are making 10% each week, internet, consistently, I will provide them $1 million to their method.... And expect the pittance to insults them that I am offering.

Why? Start with $1,000, compound at 10% per week, and after only 5 years the account balance is $58 trillion, give or have a couple of hundred billion.

Who said it was not feasible to become a trillionaire beginning with only $1,000?

It's all about proportions.
10% is 10% whether it is $1,000 (and trading micro-lots), or $1,000,000,000,000....

....and it is all tongue-in-cheek (....but no offense intended).

David

Of course it's impossible to make a living out of a inadequately funded account, particularly as living expenses produce an extra kind of drawdown. The smaller the account, the smaller any gains made, relative to these prices.

But that doesn't alter the fact that FX trading is totally scalable, i.e. 10% is 10%, no matter whether one is trading micro-lots, or 100 lot rankings; and that gains may be compounded exponentially using fixed fractional sizing (or something similar).

Thus, whether an account gets blown or not has nothing to do with its size. If newbies blow accounts because they're attempting to become rich too fast, then that's an MM issue, i.e. sizing places too large percentage-wise, with regard to total capital. If I exchange 100 lot places with an account size of $500,000, then I am just as likely to blow off my account for a man who is trading minis having an account size of $500, because the percentages are the same. (In fact possibly more so, if I am not able to manage the plogical pressure imposed by the higher stakes)

Beginning with a large enough account balance provides no guarantee of success. Success is dependent on having all method, money and mind sorted out, whatever the level of stakes. Therefore I believe that the impliion from the post - which method things than beginning funds less - is completely misleading.

To be honest though, if poor MM is more widespread among folk trading small size accounts, and brokers are preying on this fact, then the idea has some merit.

Ultimately, to whatever extent brokers make money by trading against their clients, then surely - everything else being equal - there's more in it for them by focusing on the huge fish investing their 10 lot rankings, than the minnows who are trading micro-lots.

David

Originally Posted by ;

Of course it is not possible to earn a living from a inadequately funded account, especially as living expenses create an extra kind of drawdown. The smaller the account, the smaller any gains created, relative to these costs.

However, that doesn't alter the reality that FX trading is totally scalable, i.e. 10 percent is 10%, irrespective of whether one is trading micro-lots, or 100 lot positions; and that gains may be compounded exponentially using adjusted fractional sizing (or anything similar).

Thus, whether an account becomes blown or not has nothing to do with its size. If newbies blow accounts since they're attempting to get rich too quick, then that is an MM issue, i.e. sizing places too high percentage-wise, with regard to total capital. If I trade 100 lot places with an account size of $500,000, then I'm just as inclined to blow my account for a man who is trading minis with an account size of $500, since the percentages are the same. (In fact possibly more so, if I'm not able to cope with the plogical pressure imposed by the higher stakes.)

Beginning with a large enough account equilibrium offers no guarantee of success. Success is dependent on getting all of money, process and mind sorted out, whatever the degree of bets. Hence I believe that the impliion in the initial article - that method things less than starting capital - is completely misleading.

To be honest though, if inferior MM is more widespread among people trading small size accounts, and brokers are preying on this simple fact, then the idea has some merit.

Finally, to whatever extent brokers earn money by trading from their customers, then surely - everything else being equal - there is more in it for them by focusing on the big fish trading their 10 lot positions, than the minnows that are trading micro-lots.

David

Hi Hanover,

You make some valid points,

Nevertheless Larger Fish do not swim with the market manufacturers with the Larger spreads. They trade with the banks, or Commission Brokers....Yet stop hunting is stop hunting....this is a extremely cut throat business, sharks are everywhere....banks will push the B/A as much as a MM broker....though that the prices are generally 5-6 pips off from authentic spot.

Originally Posted by ;

....After roughly 2-3 months and a lot of questions from a couple of acquaintances that decided to follow John Doe's trading platform he then modifies his trading platform or as he puts it enhance it for better entry positions or more pips. So you start to get a John Doe version 1....and later a version 2. . .and later a version 3....and later on everyone is confused.... Including John Doe himself....

YesI guess that given sufficient time, most of the systems here will prove unprofitable. Most systems that are technical just work profitably for as long as market conditions remain suitable.

I concur that it is misleading to a newbie, if he/she goes straight to the Trading Systems forum, sees every one these hundreds of systems, and presumes wow, if every one these systems are profitable, then making money from Currency Market trading must be easy. And of course it is very difficult for a newcomer to decide which of these systems he/she should embrace.

However, in fairness to the developers of these systems, most don't assert that their system is profitable. They are posting them as a proposed notion, with a couple of to getting opinions from experienced traders, so that aspects of their systems may be made better. Or they may be seeking to have an EA designed to back-test their idea. Many of these folk post on the Journals forum, to gradually develop a history, and provoke further debate around the live transactions that have been made.

David

I agree, you shouldn't attempt to create a dwelling with less than 50K, they key is to be patient enought to keep your day job, until you build up your account to this degree, and if you can't deliver it up to this then obviously you do not need to be doing it for a living. Also if you do have 50K look at putting 25k in forex and 25K in another asset class such as futures to diversify risk, while another is flat, and one can provide sufficient volatility to satisfy your cost of living requirements.

Hi iandekoker,

Obviously in the future because it's inevitable that a egy will need to be changed when the market changes. I'm not saying they will be profitable. As just mentioned by.

A response to why they keep changing their egies from version 1 to version 2 each 3 seconds is because they new and are eager to post their customs of a possible profitable trading platform. Most profitable experienced traders may either not divulge their primary bread and butter egy for obvious reasons and when they ever did want to place a egy they would have usually been confident enough in that specific egy because they have done all of the tweaks before posting it unlike the newbies. Therefore, no new variants. I've seen egies picked apart by newbies and strove to be made into holy grails but it never works as you state, by the page this men egy looks like someones breakfast because newbies wanted to tweak it more.

To get a egy that loses cash, exactly, I really don't find any sense in that whatsoever. The reason why I know that someone will trade a egy that loses money is because they have sufficient cash till it becomes profitable . Then basically there's no egy, it's buy/sell and hang on till there's some pips. A fighter can do this. (Note: I'm not talking about egies that are profitable position trades as they need to be well timed for entries etc.. )

A egy that risks an acceptable quantity of money that's equipped to be made back with greater profit is realistic however.

Therefore why I think the system is first and foremost (excluding those mini accounts that are just too small in starting funds to make lunch money).

Have a great weekend guys.

Originally Posted by ;

If anybody ever gets to the point where they are making 10 percent per week, internet, always, I will offer them $1 million to their system.... And expect the pittance to insults them that I am offering.

Why? Start with $1,000, compound at weekly, and after just 5 years that the account balance is $58 trillion, give or take a couple of hundred billion.

Who said it was not possible to become a trillionaire starting with just $1,000?

It is all about proportions.
10 percent is 10% whether it's $1,000 (and trading micro-lots), or $1,000,000,000,000....

....and it's all tongue-in-cheek (....but no offense intended).

David

I will better your offer and provide them 2 million....lol

Originally Posted by ;

Hi,

Clearly in the future as it's inevitable that a egy will have to be changed when the market changes. I am not saying they will be profitable. Mentioned by.

An answer to why they keep changing their egies from version 1 to version two every three seconds is since they new and are happy to post their findings of a potential profitable trading platform. Most profitable experienced traders will either not disclose their main bread and butter egy for apparent reasons and if they did wish to place a egy they would have been confident enough in that specific egy since they've done all of the tweaks before posting it unlike the newbies. Hence, no more new variants. I have seen egies picked apart by newbies and tried to be made into grails but it never works and as you state, from the 56th webpage this men egy looks like someones breakfast since newbies desired to tweak it more.

To get a egy that loses cash, exactly, I really don't find any sense in that whatsoever. The only reason why I know that someone will trade a egy that loses money is because they have enough cash to stay in the trade till it becomes profitable . Then basically there's no egy, it's buy/sell and hang on till there's some blue pips. A monkey can do that. (Note: I am not talking about egies that are profitable position trades as they need to be well timed for entrances etc.. )

A egy that risks an acceptable quantity of money that is equipped to be made back with greater profit is realistic however.

Hence why I feel the system is first and foremost (excluding those mini accounts that are just too modest in beginning funds to make lunch money).

Enjoy a great weekend guys.

I have read the Fozzy, TEB, Vegas, Mouteki, Cornflower, Bagovino, Tlatomi, Igrok, Sidus, BAT systems and they all lack the Exact Same thing. The signal appears to looks after the market has proceeded 40-100 pips. Now in my view that is a lot of pips to loose out on. AND the instances they provide signals that are good are if the currency is in a strong tendency. But anybody could have done exactly the same. And be in the pips sooner.

But that's just my view...