You need to pay for consultancy, dear anonymous cowardly retard. I already told you many times. There is no free lunch here for arrogant and cowardly defamators like you. Place a few of your profitable no-risk trades, so you can pay, LOL (Not sure what are you going to do with the explanation of any algorithm if you as so uneducated you can't put together 2 simple lines, though)
You are really a full retard. A mere 5% down with a 25% drop in the index? Do you even understand the dynamic shifting of the payoff scenario? Please, go make a revision to your brain. You really should not be trading if a 5% down scares you, dear anonymous cowardly retard. Sure, you are used to the no-risk trades. No-DD, too right? Well, I hope someday to reach your heights. Make millions and no DD. LOL excuse me, I am still learning. Teach us, master ...
No need. I already know how to short puts. Thanks! let’s wager $25K on a trading comp. Provide the account number to each other. Best return in 60-days with no DD to exceed 5%.
Quite frankly, you and your clueless arrogance are less important to me than my last fart. Now, please, excuse me I am pretty busy with more worthy people to interact with and important development work (social media sites) than hearing the hopeless farts of an uneducated and uneducable narcissist. You continue playing with your fleas (25K, LOL), my dear anonymous cowardly retard destriero. Have a good life ... If possible, also, go fuck off. I would appreciate it.
Define a "profitable order" as an order which either lowers the buy average or raises the selling average. A conceptual prerequisite (necessary, but not sufficient condition) for a long-term, profitable approach is that: Prob(Order | set of profitable orders ) = Prob(Order) Prob(Order | set of unprofitable orders) != Prob(Order) (which we might call: the "principle of conservation of the trading information") Instead, 99.9% of gambling-addicted traders do the following: Prob(Order | set of profitable orders ) = Prob(Order) Prob(Order | set of unprofitable orders ) = Prob(Order) This will destroy any possibility of an edge because, in effect, from a conceptual point of view, they are choosing random points over a Geometric Brownian motion or a mix of these. And they repeat the process without incorporating the effects of the previous losses into the trading process. They assume that through repetition, they are "learning". The problem is that there is actually nothing to "learn" from the market in terms of an edge because the market (and the algorithms of the market makers) is not providing that information for your benefit. That is also why any trading technique based on "machine learning" will never have an edge. Nor any "signal-based" trading process formed by "disjoint" (nonoverlapping) trades. So they will have occasional profits and occasional losses but on average, long-term will not go anywhere. It's just entertainment and a form of addiction to gambling fueled by desperate hope: https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/dests-overwrite-journal.359397/page-56 They need to do it. It's a compulsion and a drug. It has nothing to do with a long-term, consistent algorithmic approach, which is, instead, what I strive to demonstrate. Gambling addicts have often their brains completely fried and are light years from any comprehension of what entails trading with a continuous flow of orders which is modulated to hedge, maintain a continuous long/short balance, and grab the price fluctuations. There is no gambling in this process; it's just a continuous process that generates long-term returns, essentially stemming from market fluctuations and past trading information use. Reasoning in terms of "fixed bets" or "fixed structures" (whatever one wishes to call them, but it should be clear what I mean) is the same as gambling. It either makes a profit or a loss at each shot. In a "good" algorithmic approach (that is not just automating "gambles"), there is no fixed structure but a continuous modulation of position through a flow of orders. If the market goes down 10% or 25% or whatever (circuit breakers would trigger, anyway) or volatility explodes, we do not lose 4MM as the poor clueless retarded suggested. Why? Because the algorithm will simply immediately change the position. The short may disappear completely (assuming we are trading PUTs, for instance), and the long may emerge. When the market rises, the short may be reopened, and so on, always maintaining a balance. That is why our DD is relatively ridiculous (<5%), and it's not 3-4MM as expected by the poor cowardly slanderer retard. But that is way too difficult to understand for gambling addicts, used to Las Vegas trips, especially if their "cups" are always full of overflowing egos and they are afflicted by narcissistic personality disorders. For this reason, I only deal with investors who can understand what I am doing and have the brains and insight to penetrate the idea. These are not people who trade with earbuds while parroting some incomprehensible jargon that even institution professionals have a problem understanding, but serious people who can sit down and think deeply, and drive the platform like a plane. There is never any gain in dealing with stupidity, especially if coupled with the Dunning-Krueger effect. That is a deadly combination that leads nowhere. I have been doing research all my life on this matter (besides other matters of course, closer to my profession) and these are bits of "philosophy" I can share. If you do not want to believe it, it's fine, it won't change anything for me. I am also pretty close to my final demise, so imagine how much I can care... I envision that if I said the following sentence to many people: "There is no matter as such" most of them will think I am a lunatic, right? Make a search and tell me who he was (This is the complete quote: "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such" )
Let's demonstrate this simple concept by using the most basic possible real example. I will borrow one real-time screenshot from one of my friends/investors (this is not fictitious $$$). [Note that I do not even know personally some of my investors/patrons, as some choose to remain anonymous, so do not even think to ask for information in regard. For anyone asking just assume it's all fake $$$ and all a simulated game of a university theorist It does not matter anyway because the algorithm cannot (and does not want to, obviously) distinguish between real or simulated money]. This is a fresh layer that has been running for less than 3 weeks (taken yesterday morning when he reconnected). Look how at the first small rise of the price, the algorithm immediately re-modulates the position (blue circle on the right, representing a buy order). That is an example of "unfavorable order" as defined in the previous post. However, it will eventually turn "favorable" later, when the overall structure or scenario is modified through the flow of orders (the concept of "trade" is not used here) and the "information transfers" (simplistically think of them as "rollovers", the difference being that the whole trading information is propagated and carried over). This is a continuous process developing over months and years, and going on forever in a continuous manner. Not a sequence of "gambles". Everybody has to make his own experience and journey. My legacy here is just a seed in your brain. I do not expect everybody gets it. But give it time, and it will grow if the soil is fertile, gradually wiping out all the nonsense You have probably seen I have no problem whatsoever programming anything a human being can think of, as for me coding is more or less like breathing. So just think about it. If just a few bets or "signals" could work, why on earth would I not be simply doing that? Am I some sort of masochist, wasting decades in development and conceptual efforts? It's just that, actually, I literally tried it all at the beginning of my journey, and at this point, I know exactly what works and what doesn't, and why; what has an edge (long-term consistency) and what cannot, due to conceptual reasons. Gamblers will often remain such because the gambling attitude is just a reflection of their current overall intellectual level unless some major psychological trauma or significant event changes their vision of life So, just be aware that there might be a different reality from the gambling addicts trading their cheap laptops from LA or Vegas while hammering their tympana with AirPods and thinking, or wishing to convey the impression, they are some intellectually elevated guy because they keep parroting some seemingly fancy word they overheard, and most often do not even know what it means in actual mathematical terms (gamma and so on) Welcome to the varied world of trading, where you can find literally anything
We are touching today a new record high for our PNL. Total 674K in 569 days. Currently using 38.7% of available funds. Official info from IB: Last values received: Wed 23 Aug 2023 16:56:31:536 Wed 23 Aug 2023 10:56:31:536 ET BuyingPower 11351717.17 USD [Min: 0.00, Max: 12900867.51] (6.67 x 1702757.58) FullAvailableFunds 1702757.58 USD FullExcessLiquidity 1889460.04 USD FullInitMarginReq 1079303.20 USD FullMaintMarginReq 892600.74 USD NetLiquidation 2782060.78 USD Current payoff (always remember that this is not a "fixed structure", as it changes continuously its shape and extension or location at each new order): The underlying is currently on the extreme right of the chart (4571) where the final PNL level is 254K (the "peak' of the mountain is currently 689K located near 3300, which is almost 30% market decline). ES FUT 202309 CME 50 E-mini S&P 500 [ESU3, 497222760, mult: 50]
Haven't been following this much, but have you been booking (peeling away) any of these onion layers for a profit return for the clients as time goes by?
Hi Overnight, I am not sure I understand the real question you are posing. Let me know if this is addressing your real question. A "layer" is (for me) in essence one of those lines you see on the left window and the corresponding price history on the screen. At each time a layer contains 1 current instrument. For instance, this is a layer: ES FOP 20240419 4500 P CME 50 E-mini S&P 500 [EW3J4 P4500, 620747838, mult: 50] However, as time goes by, on the same layer you can, if you want, "roll over" (I call it "information transfer" because it's not a simple "rollover") to different (or new) instruments [in principle, they could be anything provided, we keep at least the same instrument multiplier]. So, for instance, this is a layer showing/containing the results and data of a sequence of multiple instruments: Transfer: ES FOP 20220711 2700 P GLOBEX 50 → ES FOP 20220729 2700 P GLOBEX 50 Transfer: ES FOP 20220729 2700 P GLOBEX 50 → ES FOP 20221021 3000 P GLOBEX 50 Transfer: ES FOP 20221021 3000 P GLOBEX 50 → ES FOP 20221230 2650 P GLOBEX 50 Transfer: ES FOP 20221230 2650 P CME 50 → ES FOP 20230120 2750 P CME 50 Transfer: ES FOP 20230120 2750 P CME 50 → ES FOP 20230331 2900 P CME 50 Transfer: ES FOP 20230331 2900 P CME 50 → ES FOP 20230929 2800 P CME 50 Transfer: ES FOP 20230929 2800 P CME 50 → ES FOP 20231117 3000 P CME 50 At any time, if you wish, you can remove a layer from your console. There is no problem. I am keeping all of them mainly for illustration purposes. (Currently 92 layers, with all the trading data and orders of 569 days. So it's quite a lot). But of course, if you wish you can shut them down anytime you like (possibly to free memory). You can shut them all down and restart it anytime you like (you would lose "trading information", but if you are in good profit, you probably do not care). You can even restart multiple instances of the platform, all pointing to different accounts. At any time, your profit is given by the PNL that you see. So it does not matter if you "remove" or not a layer, the PNL is always what you see at that very moment in your account and it's the result of the PNL computations carried on all the executed orders (plus the "projected orders" needed to close all, in my case). The user has already the PNL in his own account, not sure what you mean by "peeling off". I have no access to the user account. Of course, if he wishes, he can remove $$$ from (or add $$$ to) his own account. In that case, one would be forced to resize the folio accordingly, because we need to keep a "safety reserve" (for instance 50%), to be able to better ride corrections, making the most of them Probably, I have not answered your question because I have not really understood what you mean by "peeling away for a profit return". Please, let me know if I addressed correctly your question or in case what is missing.