FORUMS BROKERS SOFTWARE
Home
 
    Forums > Trading for a Living > Trade Management > Position Sizing & Correlations


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old Sep 27th, 2010, 05:45 AM   #1
daniel_tysen
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 50
Hi there,

I'm swing-trading currencies, being in a trade for 2-5 days usually.

I like to get in trending markets when they pullback.

I'd like to risk 1% per trade.

Now very often I get interested in not only one but quite a few markets because they're highly correlated like AUD/USD, NZD/USD, GBP/USD, EUR/USD might all do a pullback on the same day.

Or AUD/NZD, AUD/CAD, AUD/JPY, AUD/USD last week...they're all correlated to AUD.

In the past I liked to pick the one I liked best, place my limit-order in that market and forget about the rest.

It has worked out okay so far but what happens often is:

- The market I've chose is the one that performs worst...
- My limit order doesn't get filled in the chosen market, but would have in one of the others...they all run without me now...

So in other words I think it might be more logical to try to get in all of those markets...since trying to pick "the best" usually is a stupid idea...also if you think about it, it's a bit too much prediction...


But of course if I'd place orders in all "interesting markets", I'd have to deal with correlations. Highly correlated markets, medium correlated markets etc...

Now I don't have much experience in this, how do you handle it?

Best thing that came to my mind is:

Let's say I want to risk 1% on the trade, meaning I have to split up that risk if I trade more but highly correlated markets. I spot 3 of those markets and place my orders

- Fit my position size to risk 1% in every market, since I don't know if all 3 orders will get filled.
- When the first order gets filled, I modify the not yet filled 2 orders in the other markets cutting the position size down to 50% (0.5% risk).
- If one of those 2 orders get actually filled, I close 1/2 of the first position.
- If the third order get's filled, I'm okay because 1.5% risk instead of 1% seems okay to having split of the risk a little by being in three markets.


How do you handle this? Any better ideas?


Daniel
    Quote
Old Sep 28th, 2010, 11:33 AM   #2
daniel_tysen
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 50
Anyone? Cmon you must have to deal with correlations, too!
    Quote
Old Sep 28th, 2010, 06:18 PM   #3
dwpeters
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 289
You could use an OCA - one cancels all order. I know Interactive Brokers supports this order type. With it you can place all 3 orders and when/if one is filled the others are canceled. From there you can enter the other positions, or not.
    Quote
Old Sep 30th, 2010, 07:02 AM   #4
daniel_tysen
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 50
Hi Peter,

not a bad idea, thanks for the reply!

Daniel
    Quote
Old Sep 30th, 2010, 10:45 AM   #5
minmike
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 352
Limit orders not getting filled is part of life when using a limit order.

The trade off is where the benefit of placing a limit order is greater than the risk of not getting filled. Corrolations or not.

I think with the OCA orders you run the risk of always picking the worst pair.

I think you are just trying to get too cute. Focus on 4-5 pairs that have as little correlation as possible, get to know them and don't worry what would have happened in some of the others. It isn't important to you until you develop a profitable way to objectively choose between all of the options.
    Quote
Old Sep 30th, 2010, 06:11 PM   #6
daniel_tysen
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 50
Quote:
Quote from minmike:

Limit orders not getting filled is part of life when using a limit order.

The trade off is where the benefit of placing a limit order is greater than the risk of not getting filled. Corrolations or not.

I think with the OCA orders you run the risk of always picking the worst pair.

I think you are just trying to get too cute. Focus on 4-5 pairs that have as little correlation as possible, get to know them and don't worry what would have happened in some of the others. It isn't important to you until you develop a profitable way to objectively choose between all of the options.
Hi Mike,

thanks for your reply.

Well to focus on a couple of pairs or trying to pick the best is what I've been doing in the past. It just seems to make less sense to me with the experience I have now...the result of my thoughts is that I want to diversify, instead of having 1 trade running, have 3 running and not try to "pick the best" because that's bullshit...you never know which one the right is

So I'm really looking for a solution how to get this done properly. How to handle it, what's the best way...

Take care,

Daniel
    Quote
 
Reply
Thread Tools

Forum Jump



   Conduct Rules   Privacy Policy   Sitemap Copyright © 2014, Elite Trader. All rights reserved.   

WHILE YOU'RE HERE, TAKE A MINUTE TO VISIT SOME OF OUR SPONSORS:
Advantage Futures
Futures Trading & Clearing
AMP Global Clearing
Futures and FX Trading
Collective2
Automated Trading Services
CTS
Futures Trading Software
dom993trading.com
NinjaTrader Consulting
eSignal
Trading Software Provider
FXCM
Forex Trading Services
Global Futures
Futures, Options & FX Trading
Interactive Brokers
Pro Gateway to World Markets
JC Trading Group
Direct Access Trading
MB Trading
Direct Access Trading
NinjaTrader
Trading Software Provider
optionshouse
Option Trading & Education
Rithmic
Futures Trade Execution Platform
SpeedTrader
Direct Access Trading
SpreadProfessor
Spread Trading Instruction
thenut-trader.com
FX, Gold, & Stock Signals
TradersStudio
System Building & Backtesting
Tradier
Equity and Options Trading
Trading Technologies
Trading Software Provider