Can you be profitable with random entry?

Random entry?...that doesn't sound like good money management to me, but hey, what do I know.

- nathan

 

Of course not, it's a monkey-system.

 

you're not meant to trade it funny fellas. you get your random system to generate the same market exposure as the system you propose to trade. if your system then cant beat say the 95th percentile of random results (which are often positive), then you're system is too random to trade. i'm sure several people mentioned this previously

 

Nice work toe.
Where have you been hiding?

bolter

 

try random entry at blackjack and the result would most probably be neutral long term, if you had commissions involved for every stake you would have negative equity for sure and a nagging wife as you would be on your way to becoming an alcoholic . Luck is not a sustainable equation that one can control. On the other hand if one was to count cards the odds of coming out positive would be much more favourable. Understanding the right time of entry paired with solid money management would beat any random entry system. That is common sense and a lot more obvious. It is the naive side within us that remains being positive of similar suggestions.

The only way to find out for yourself is actually doing it, why don't you try it out in a sim and show us some results. That would be a lot more subjective than hypothetical discussions on whether VT's system is profitable or unprofitable long term. No disrespect intended.

 

thanks bolter, been hard at programming myself, head down bottom up, having a ball. hows everything?

toe

 

Funny toe fella:

Can't YOU read the thread title:
"Can YOU be profitable with random entry?"

If the thread launcher meant it as a theoretical exercise, let's all admit that he's also funny.

Why waste your time on a funny-farm gimmick. OK for VT's loser books and ET-oddballs, not for serious traders.

 

toe,
I can see you've been busy. Glad to hear things are going well. PM me sometime and let me know what your up to.
Cheers

 

nononsense I'd say you haven't quite been following the conversation then. Threads can progress beyond the title. These quotes are from the author...

The author responding to Bolter on using random trades to index against simulation results.

On the topic of indexing against results using randomisation, I personally think we can thank our 'lucky stars' that the FDA requires exactly that when they are asked to decide whether to allow a new drug onto the market. A significant result in a controlled, double blind study is the gold standard. Controlled being the key word because many patients will get better without a new drug, just the same as many trading systems will make money with random entries. There's no value in knowing your system merely makes money, if it doesn't beat the market then how can you have confidence it will make money if the market changes? Without indexing against random, we may not be aware that our system is no better than random.


bolter thanks, will do.