Well, the expectancy of EVERY model varies. You still seem to be missing the point. A trader doesn't artificially maintain the expectancy within a framework. The trader always tries for peak profitability (which is a function of expectancy, size, and turnover), but he should have some type of minimum expectancy rule. At the very least, the trader should know that a trade offers at least a slight positive expectancy, otherwise he is really just guessing. I can almost guarantee that your gross expectancy (i.e. under all market conditions) isn't even close to 100% or you wouldn't be claiming to be under-capitalized. Another quick way to tell, is to calculate your beta and alpha. If your beta isn't zero with very high alpha, then your expectancy probably isn't even above 10%. But the point still is that you don't even have any idea what it is.
thanks Epic, you really addressed the original question I was asking, namely position size. I'll research it more. It would be wonderful to have the whole thing reduced down to numbers.
Yes, that's what I've been trying to explain this whole time. Whether to increase size depends completely on the effect that increase would have on the trade profitability. Take it one step further. Profitability is essentially just a simple equation. Expectancy X Size X Turnover Size = % risk per trade Turnover = number of round trips per day/week/month Example I Expectancy = +15% Size = 1% Turnover = 1 round trip per day (2 trades per day) Expected annual profit = (0.15 * 0.01 * 1) * 250 = 37.5% That is of course assuming the ability to compound daily. Example II Expectancy = +30% Size = 1% Turnover = 1 round trip per week Expected annual profit = 15.5% So now you see that profitability isn't just about expectancy either. In the above examples, the one with lower expectancy actually resulted in greater profitability. Your goal isn't to maximize expectancy, but to maximize profitability. This will end up being a function sort of like a heavily skewed bell curve. Typically, as expectancy increases, turnover decreases because there are just fewer really good trades. But also, as expectancy approaches 0, trading costs start to offset small profits. You just need to figure out where the peak of that curve is for your strategy. The peak of that curve will tell you what expectancy to look for. From there, trade size is determined based on the maximum allowable drawdown.
Let`s try it. Ave win = 0,18% Ave loss = 0,12% 89:22 Winners and Losers (89*0,18) - (22*0,12) = 16,02 - 2,64 = 13,38 Expectancy of the model is +13,38% Am i correct? Where is next?I still don`t get it whats in it for me,if i know how to deduct and multiply Please share yor wisdom.
The biggest loss (-$4K)occured on Wed20 I added to the postition once and closed at the end of the session.If i kept adding,i`d blow my ass.
But it seems that NT blotter produces the complete bull crap in the statement.For e.g.,how can it be 13,95% of the Cumulative Profit if the initial amount at the begining was $40K?Also,Ave winning trade of 0,18% is 72 for $40K.Or what are those numbers related to? Someone apparently dumber then f.k.Either the platform developers or myself.
Now you have a slightly more realistic picture of where you've been until now. You know that in aggregate you expect to make $13.38 for every $100 risked. Like I said before, that is the easy part, but at least now you know. Let's take it step-by-step. Determine your expected annual ROR. Answer this question. What was your turnover? IOW, how many round trips (open then closed trades) do you get in an average month? We aren't just looking for average holding period here. Average holding period is useless at this point.
111 trades over the month.Though,the numbers for Ave Win/Ave loss incorrect.That blotter delivers complete crap instead of the accurate statement.But let`s try it manually.