Modified martingale/progressive concepts

Discussion in 'Risk Management' started by virtualmoney, May 12, 2009.

  1. Instead of "Building up" positions with martingale/anti-martingale style, how about just closing each trade on it's own with any directional method (with fixed target spacing) but increasing the next trade's size progressively after a losing trade and reducing the size after a winning trade...

    EA trade ************** hedge trade
    0.01, lose ************** 0.01, win
    0.02, lose ************** 0.01, win
    0.03, lose ************** 0.01, win
    0.04, win ************** 0.01, lose
    0.03, lose ************** 0.01, win
    0.04, lose ************** 0.01, win
    0.05, win ************** 0.01, lose
    0.04, win ************** 0.01, lose

    If the strategy has 4 losses in a row, throw it away.
    Then the system will at least breakeven when it has 2 winners in a row...
    In this example, lose = 0.13, win = 0.13, it breakeven with only 3 winning trades & 5 losing trades. The hedge side with the exact opposite profit target spacing gives the overall system some extra pips.

    Please share your thoughts on how to improve this or a modified progressive/martingale system that does not accumulate positions.:confused:
  2. You can massage this all you want, but 6 months from now, it will not put you closer to making money. A perpetual motion machine is a perpetual motion machine - in other words, it does not exist.
  3. The point is to discuss further how to improve progressions/ martingales that does not accumulate positions in a single direction which is bad in trending market..
    direction depends on independent bets/signals of strategy...

    For example, how to adjust these methods to trading:
  4. MGJ


    Wouldn't it be cool if you could somehow watch these concepts in action? Something like a computer simulation "test", with a historical stream of market prices that triggers lots of trades to be entered and exited (some at a profit, others at a loss), and applying your idea of how much to risk or wager or bet on each trade. You could even make it deal with the real-world, real-life situation of trading a portfolio of currencypairs (or stocks, or ETFs, or futures, or spreadbets, or CFDs) where you've got several trades open and fluctuating simultaneously.

    Boy would that be nifty -- and USEFUL. You could test back in time to see what woulda, coulda, mighta happened, if only you possessed this trade management idea in 1997. Yeah, that's the ticket. Test back in time! Sure! Let's call this "backtesting," it seems like a great idea.
  5. monti1a


    Why don't you try this simple concept that works in both TRADING and POKER:

    ALWAYS "throw-away" all "Bad" Hands/Trades, and ALWAYS "go all-in" on all "Good" Hands/Trades.

    Of course, when I mean "go-all-in", I don't mean risk your entire account, but instead put on a larger position than normal that is within reason.
  6. This looks more like modified D'lambert than modified Martingale.
  7. They are both negative progression