Thank you so kindly. You seem to be my only reader having given nononsense's "random non-linear chaotic strategy of the 3rd kind" any credibility. I'm touched. Sincerily hope it may pull you one day out of your "dog crap" (sic). Glad to have been able to enlighten you.
Your inability to distinguish sarcasm from straightforward talk seems to indicate that you are in dear need of assistance of some kind. Maybe all that nonsense you post has been getting at you lately. Your posting here on ET is as enlightening as a torch with dead batteries. In other words, absolutely useless. That's just fine, there are many others who are helpful and have interesting thoughts and comments. But if you think that your arrogance will go uncorrected, think twice dude. Not on ET.
Hey dude, Be happy you heard about nononsense's "random non-linear chaotic strategy of the 3rd kind" at ET. It is at least as effective as a lot of the other stuff pushed onto newbies. That's all time I can spend on you. Keep on coming back but you badly need to learn about how to distinguish between fact and opinion. Can cost you dearly if you ever would happen to try putting on a trade. nononsense
Is that the best you can come up with? LOL You sound like a broken record and your repeating the same stupid line for the umpteenth time means you aint got it what it takes to see the truth. Yeah don't respond until you have something worthwhile to say. You are not privy to my trading and hence your concluding sentence is meaningless.
ES335, that was mean, he has the right to post whatever he thinks. everybody has his own opinion, and its not going to be changed. that's life, my son.
nononsense, Please argue your opinion about money management on this thread. I agree that money management (as position sizing) can't make you money by itself, but this is the same as saying that a business with good accounting can't make money from a bad product. This is as true as saying that a business will not survive with no accounting. I think that what irritates some of your readers is your dismissive tone, and your unsupported inferences about things other people believe in.
In case you missed this on the thread, opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one. I stated this earlier and never argued that your statement isn't true. But if arrogant folks like nononsense think they can get away with nonsense, they are wrong, and will be corrected, as he has on this thread. Of course he has a right to post. He also has to fess up to the fact that people will disagree with him and will ask for evidence to support his opinions. If he doesn't want to provide evidence, he has to accept that people will discount what he says as 'just another opinion'. If he could do that, there would be no polluting this thread with arguing. But it seems Nononsense can't take the heat (disagreement) and resorts to name calling and demeaning statements like 'you need help' etc. Let's put it more simply. You have a right to post your opinion, this is what ET is for. But if it's a sweeping statement that is controversial, don't expect people to just sit back and not exercise their right to disagree. All I am saying is that I have a right to tell you that an 'opinion' may not be worth anything if it isn't backed by evidence. That is my right. So just accept that and no one will have to use name calling, say demeaning things, or get mean to correct an arrogant bully. Btw, given that you barely have any posts on this site, I strongly urge you not to use a condescending tone. I aint your son, got that?
Cnms2 Thank you for a great thread on the kelly formula. I think we have looked at it from many different angles and find some solace in the help that this thread (even if it is a starting point for further research) has provided. ET hasn't completely gone to the dogs yet, there are still a handful of helpful posters, and you are definitely one of them. I don't think there is much more to say on kelly, but please keep posting if you have more ideas.
Thanks. I just read spike500's post about Larry Williams's legendary contest win. Based on the data he provided, Larry had a 52% winning percentage, and a 0.885 average win / average loss ratio. This results in a 10.5% Kelly ratio. I wonder how representative are his contest results for the trading system he used. I guess that his typical results (% wins, win/loss) were better. Quote from spike500: I don't think Larry Williams has low risk percentages. Larry Williamsâ super performance in 1987 made me curious. So I loaded all his 1987â trades in an excel and came to the following information: Number of trades: 308 Winning trades: 179 (58%) for an amount of 5,991,704.35 $ Losing trades: 129 (42%) for an amount of 4,878,852.65 $ 5 draw downs of over â30% 2 draw downs of over â60% 1 draw downs of over â75% (maximum draw down was â 78.45%) Some remarks: More than 80% of his profits were lost again in his losing trades. The evolution of the returns were frightening, fast up, but with the same speed down again. Chart looks like a roller coaster, so not the ideal investment for someone with a heart disease. When he reached the first significant high around 888,000$ beginning of may, he needed another 4 months and 118 trades before I got above this 888,000$ level. End of august his equity was at 1,040,486.62$. So in the last 4 months he had to do over 100 trades to make an additional 10%. His trading style is completely different from what I had in mind of him. When I see the chart I have the impression he had difficulties to get consistent and stable performances. He had periods that he made money like crazy, but he had also periods that he lost money like crazy. But I must admit that in the end he made a huge amount of money, much more than I will ever be able to make.