Sometimes you just have to move on, and that time is now. As it turns out the consensus is 7-10yr exponential curve and ~2%/mth return. Now, as mentioned in a previous thread, there are ways to do it differently and have been looking at automating where it turns out have hit a wall of the knowledge. What is surprising is that everyone is too nervous to even ask the question, a probability of 2% on an exponential curve is better than possible failure on a logarithmic curve at 20%. The problem here is that due to my history I have some rather interesting access to technology, but as it's just me I have been finding it difficult to harness its full potential. It turns out that 20% return on capital per quarter using discretionary is better than 2% per month using automation, as in the end the same 7-10yr timeframe applies only the amount of work is a lot different. The idea was to generate 20% per quarter with automation, actually the plan was 250-400% per year as the tech is available to do it. But given the 2% per month bias, the workload and team structure necessary to achieve this is not readily available, and collaboration is not on the cards because they need to know they can trust the third parties. What no one knows is that have free access to Tier2 karlie.trading.studio and also access to Gisele, ok have to have an $8.5mn waiver but that's secondary. The reason I have this is by being trusted not to pyramid based on history and also being involved from the ground up. You see, this experience comes from the most knowledgeable people there are, family lunches with 10digit millionaires, institutional partners and consultants to ceos of multi-nationals. Thought it might be helpful to pass some of it on as have some spare time, and if seeing anyone wanted a break to use their knowledge more efficiently along the way and you never know, some bright spark may have had an idea that could be harnessed to take the institutions head on. Most people are looking to generate 2:1; when you understand either yourself or other people you get 5:1; when you understand yourself and other people you get 10:1; and when you understand yourself, other people, and also know less is more keeping information private valuing trust over money, you can get to 100:1. And that is where all the problems start, people don't like other people with 5:1 and above experience and technology. And that was my mistake, 2:1 is the going rate and I'm coming in with 10:1 and 100:1 thinking others may want to gain from some of that knowledge, it's was never going to fit. Which explains some of the 'interesting' comments that have been made along the way so am including this, there is a reason people trust the technology to me, a company gave me a €50,000 license to their enterprise software as knew could use it is a useful way, just haven't got around to it yet. So one last thank you, to GAT, who shed light on the reason why there was no traction with 5:1 and above. There really are some knowledgeable people on the forum, it's a shame they are often drowned out by the 1:1 crowd.
...I'm kind of confused -- so what's the bottom line to all of that big post... I have a relatively short attention span...I get lost if people just don't get to the dog damn point, But yea, discretionary trading is much more powerful -- if you know what you're doing. If you're the right person, trading the right thing, in the right scenario, etc etc...basically the Perfect Storm. ...instead of the average retail trader, just flailing out there in the sea.
10:1 I can do myself with the methodology on 240mn & 1day, but for 100:1 need a special team as have to work down to 10s & 1mn, even the institutions have virtually no clue how it works at 100:1. Once you have decoded the psychology, which has been done, then coding that in to the algorithms you get to 100:1, have the rules to do it but filtering out the false positives and false negatives is seriously time consuming, you need some inventive ways to generate the marginal gains. The advantage is once you have coded in the core base via this, each pair, stock, commodity needs minor adjustments for how it behaves, did a proof of concept and the base covers 95-99% of the movement, it's just that last part generates the difference between 10:1 and 100:1. Have the F1 car, have the driver, just don't have the mechanics to run it and in the end it's a team effort. Thanks for the response though. Bottom line: tried to go above 10:1 myself with the tech/experience that's available, now understand you need a team to leverage it, wanted to create the next Island, this seemed like the most optimal place to start, didn't work out, that's life, back to discretionary at 10:1.
How would you trade a billion... What instruments would you use, why and how often. What would the cost be to borrow a billion for 1 day....
What is 100:1? What the heck are you even talking about? Leverage? Nobody has survived with such leverage levels. Not in private equity, and not in property markets, and certainly not in trading. You are arrogantly flaunting all your success and riches and yet why do you need some insane levels of leverage? I recommend you pick up a basic 101 book on risk management and get real for a second.
Heck, I used 500:1 all week...two days ago 1000:1 for my hedge fund...then I woke up...wow, what a dream!