He cant FO since he is the OP and quite frankly I am surprised this fact slipped past a brilliant mind such as yours. This being the case, I gather you have just made your farewell speech sosueme
Ding ding ding! We have a winner! It took 3 runs, all of which were quite profitable. Now, can anyone explain what happens when I remove the random(2) and random(3) conditions in the 3rd run? Mike
You seem to be drifting off into the realms of fantasy when you mention ET and trading within the same sentence. Next thing, you will be telling us you are a real trader and that would be over the bordaline. We may not be able to get you back this time. sosueme
You still are confusing something. Small example: End of..............1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Day 1 Price 100 H H H H T T T T Day 2 Price 104 H H T T H H T T Day 3 Price 103 H T H T H T H T Day 4 Price 105 Coin is tossed by the disadvantaged gentleman at the end of Day 1, 2 and 3. We close all positions at the end of Day 4. Above are all the possibilities of the possible outcomes of the three tosses. Please note that each column of coin tosses has the same probability of occurring than any other column. Also note that we have 2 up days and only 1 down day and each up day is greater in magnitude than the down day. Below are the results for each column of tosses: 1. +5 2. +1 3. +7 4. +3 5. -3 6. -7 7. -1 8. -5 When each of the above 8 equally likely outcomes are totaled, the result is 0. 0 is the expectation of performing this experiment over and over again and it does not matter what the mix of up to down days is or the magnitude of those up and down days. Note that not a single outcome above was exactly 0. 0 is just what is expected in the long-term for this experiment. The above is all that the OP is stating for his "system". Hope this helps. And why the anger? Also note that column 1 (Buy and Hold) had a good result in this scenario but column 3 showed the best result by "predicting" the market's movement. I think most traders are trying to find column 3 in their trading. Joe.
Jeez, you're still going at it? Give it up already and lets get back to the point. Some people never get it - time to cut this loss...
The first conclusion is that a random strategy with costs or without them does not cut it in the long term for the purpose of making money and keeping it. The second conclusion is that a minor positive edge strategy needs a very large account to allow the "long run" to manifest the edge without going bust in the short term, as the runs of "good luck" and "bad luck" happen in reality. The smaller the edge, the bigger the account must be to avoid ruin. The third conclusion is that all these losers, that lose more than a random strategy would suggest, are doing something to their accounts that is much worse than random betting, and/or the winners of the game are doing something to their accounts and/or the price that traps all the losers in the wrong side time after time, and therein somewhere lie the two biggest edges of them all, as this is a zero sum game minus commissions: Giving liquidity to losers and/or taking liquidity from winners. Liquidity is a volume function that happens in all timeframes. The first 2 conclusions are easy to prove mathematically. Maybe someone can do it and offer the proof here. The third...well...it's not so easy to prove.