"just because he stumbles"?? I love the choice of words. Taking 6 losses in a row on a 60% winning trading style is "stumbling". Blowing up your account (twice!)? That ain't stumbling. "Oh, deary me, I appear to have just lost everything. My, my, that IS a tad inconvenient." I'm glad Niederhoffer is an "excellent human being". So is my father. But if my dad blew up and lost everything twice, I'd have to say, "shit dad, you're a great guy and I love you, but your trading SUCKS!". Yeah, people love to dance on fallen heroes, I agree. That shouldn't bother you, though. In this same post you tell us that you "don't do heroes." Could've fooled us. You know, if you follow in Niederhoffer's footsteps (your thoughts on optimal f suggest you will, sooner or later), just give him a call and tell him to read these message boards. You'll have a job as his publicist sewn up.
some of the formulas and logic on this thread go way beyond 1st grade math. i guess i should stick to drawing lines on charts and connecting the dots.
Amazing trading results are infinitely easier to achive when you are WILLING TO GO BROKE. Therefore, I always discount the 'genius' of anyone that has taken on massive risk in order to achieve gains. Would you admire someone that took a Million dollar bet at Russian Roulette, or simply ask them to name you as the beneficiary? Also, the June Issue of Stocks & Commodities magazine had a feature on money management and optimal/f which is well worth reading.
i know this is an old thread, but i think its importance is being overlooked. if you go back to message #1 of this thread (http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6104&perpage=6&pagenumber=1), you will clearly see that bet size is important. the thread then went into optimal f, which determines optimal bet size. the thread then evolved into saying optimal f is dangerous. which brings us full circle. what is the best way to manage bet size?