Mrs Savant I gotta say you are right on the money Trading can be so time consuming, and destructive to family life, rob you of concentration, mess up your real job, or mess up running your own business, that unless you are really making some serious money (200k+ per year) trading, i question it
Folks, Let it be known. This combination of "Positive Carry Trades" and "Volatility Grabbing" is a slow and steady way to make money. Lets say these two systems make an average of $7.50 a day, seven days a week. (system #1 pays nearly $5.00/day) on 5k. $7.50 * 365 = $2,737.50. Isn't that 54.75% on the 5k? Now lets say the improvements to the trading of system # 1 doubles the performance to 100%, some say 300% is easily obtainable plus payment for labor. Then 200k per year is imaginable. You must think in yield for your trading capital, and the dollars for your labor. For example, if it took you 10 million to make 200k per year, I would say your an average trader and have room to improve. My goals are clearly stated. I want a minimum of 25% growth of capital per year and payment for my labor. (I keep the gambling meter set pretty low) This forward test will quantify how the "gambling meter" changes with time. I feel this time I am spending is worth every second, as this is the way I prefer to trade. Sorta...my Holy Grail. I surely would not publish an irresponsible system here in ET for all of you to possibly be mislead with, so I have sacrificed yield to illustrate the power of "trading without gambling". Each and everyone of you is responsible for how you decide to trade this, if you trade it at all. There are many ideas and thought processes that have been illustrated and have been helpful to others that do not trade this. ET should be your "fun and positive" place to visit during your research. Michael B. P.S. I do not want to mislead you. But my vision is to set up these accelerations within a program to be able to dial in the desired yield and adjust automatically the rates of acceleration (gambling meter) based on daily progress and fullfillment or lack of fulfillment of the desired yield. Next year I will be interviewing for a programmer that understands this system. (hint: as the gambling meter gets turned up, the cash sub account is also increased at the lower yielding interest earned, but as I think you can see the gambling meter will yield more than the movement of money into cash) P.S.S. The accelerations discussed here are "rates" that float. The rates themselves and their adjustments are the "gamblng meter" master controls. This system is a difficult system to visualize and these advance concepts are even harder to visulaize and explain. Lets just stick to the work at hand and forward test for now, ok?
Hey Electric ... I noticed that you picked 3 currencies AUDJPY/EURUSD/GBPCHF, can you explain why these 3? I would think diversity and rangeness were two factors but any other reason? Just trading the EUR and CHF has been promising as my profit is already double my U/L, of course way too early for any conclusions ...
Ezekiel, Diversity was the only thinking...so far I have done some pre-emptive work on the spreadsheet, I attached it, but not finished yet. Michael B.
I found this at another Forum. Any Comments? This strategy has a LOT of potential. I've been using a variation for the past couple of months, and both my Balance and NAV have been rising steadily, often at about 1% a day (though NAV rises much slower). But a lot of details need to be hashed out, besides the grid spacing, lot sizing, and Take Profit settings. Most importantly, the decision should be made as to the following: 1) Go with SimSpeed's original method of selling on the way up and buying on the way down, or 2) Using a bi-directional approach, a la Sympatico, of selling AND buying at the same time both on the way up and the way down. This is described more completely on the O forum. The first method accumulates profits much slower, but there seems to be a bit more safety, as the price only has to go to a median point to zero out the position with no losses (unrealized or realized). The second method accumulates profits much quicker, but you have the real problem that if price goes to one extreme and then to the other extreme, price has to return all the way back to the first extreme to zero out any triggered orders there. In other words, with the first method, price only has to go back to the middle, whereas in the second method, price has to go all the way back to any extreme it's visited before. This is a pressing problem, so a balance has to be achieved. I would be interested to hear any comments from others as to which variation is optimal. Jimbo
The more I think about this: Perhaps Jimbo and others are correct. When starting off, go short above the current price at the next Pivot and long below the current price at the next Pivot. Perhaps distances on the retrace are shorter that way. Put the inverse on at the same time. The system being discussed here is like a 2-stroke engine verses Jimbo's suggestion of using Simspeeds 4-stroke engine. All other concepts and tweaks would remain the same...(they both run on gasoline and the accelerations remain the same, well the 2-stroker runs on pre-mix and in their day had faster accelerations) Michael B. P.S. I can vision moving the center line to adjust too (always with the goal to get in the center of the one year range)....
Jimbo, If you are reading here, why is this quote below true, if there is an inverse on? The first method accumulates profits much slower