Does the martingale system really work? | Page 11 | Crypto Craft

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Martingale, Anti-martingale, and Compounding 40 replies

Martingale, Reverse Martingale, Modified Martingale, Maths 1 reply

How to change this Martingale to Reverse Martingale ? 3 replies

Martingale vs. Non Martingale (Simplified RoR vs Profit) 1 reply

Does this simple system by Richard Donchian really work? 134 replies

Attachments: Does the martingale system really work?
Exit Attachments

Does the martingale system really work?

  • #201
  • Edited 7:33am Oct 31, 2013 6:31am | Edited 7:33am
Quoting TheMaxx
{quote} This is of course true as all flips are independent of each other, but why does a large number of flips follow a normal distribution? I have trouble reconciling the two ideas in my mind.
don't ask me. i'm not a statismagician. if i had to give an answer i'd say to you that "you are measuring the likelihood of runs in general, not the result just after that run." maybe think of it as a 3-sided die... after 49 times landing on 1, what is the chance of it landing on 1, 2, or 3? of course, they are all still equal chances of happening after 49 consecutive 1's. it's the run of 1's that's weird and abnormal, not the next roll. you wouldn't say that 2 is more likely since it's landed on 1 so many times, because what about 3? and similarly you wouldn't say 3 is now suddenly more likely.

what about a 20 sided die? after landing on 1 49 times, what is the next number going to be according to probabilities?

but what do i know. someone who loves playing with excel can surely toss-up a formula to count how many times you get 49 heads plus one more head versus 49 heads plus a tail.

i think when you are looking at your normal distribution you are only really seeing half of an answer to the wrong question. my fingers and toes maths suggests to me the chance of getting 49 heads and a head is the same as 49 heads and a tail, just as you are just as likely to get 49 heads or 49 tails. when you look at the distribution you focus on the run, not on the SPECIFIC PATTERN ITSELF out of all possible combinations for that number of flips. EDIT: <-- I'm saying this is probably what you are doing, and incorrectly. you are distracted by one thing and reading it as being another.

it's a game of plinko, but you are stuck looking at the second last rung, not the last rung.

or another way to look at it is, again as a game of plinko, is that the results in the middle have the most common column ancestors and were inbred, whereas the results towards the edges had less common ancestors and literally branched-out. they were less likely (i.e. it was impossible) for them to return to the common pool towards the middle by the time you cut them off at some number of iterations. what you are measuring is the likelihood of inbreeding, so to speak.

or another way to look at it is "because fuck you, that's why". don't fight it. embrace the dark side.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #202
  • Oct 31, 2013 8:03am Oct 31, 2013 8:03am
Thanks for taking the time to reply and explain.
Quoting nubcake
{quote} or another way to look at it is, again as a game of plinko, is that the results in the middle have the most common column ancestors and were inbred, whereas the results towards the edges had less common ancestors and literally branched-out. they were less likely (i.e. it was impossible) for them to return to the common pool towards the middle by the time you cut them off at some number of iterations.
So if you can accurately assign a probability to a sequence occurring, and limit your risk when that doesn't occur, haven't you got a good money management system?

eg, I'm wrong 10 times in a row 1% of the time. If I'm wrong 10 times in a row, I'll limit my martingale such that I lose 5% (?) of my account. Yes it's possible to be wrong 10 times in a row, then be wrong 10 times in a row after that, then be wrong 10 times in a row after that - but my gut (!) tells me that there's going to be a lot more times (99%?) where the martingale pays off. Is the rub accurately assigning a probability to a sequence occurring?

But this is mental masturbation as I'd never use this, and the correct answer is:
Quoting nubcake
{quote} \"because fuck you, that's why\".
  • #203
  • Edited 9:35am Oct 31, 2013 8:47am | Edited 9:35am
Quoting TheMaxx
So if you can accurately assign a probability to a sequence occurring
but, once you have started the sequence it's too late to bet. the bell curve is showing you how likely it is to have similar amounts of heads and tails, and it says to you that it's more likely that you'll have an even number of heads and tails, and less-likely that you'll have a weird run of seeing more of one side than the other.

you look at the bell-curve and think to yourself "so it's saying that weird runs should curve themselves back towards being even". maybe, maybe not. on a long enough timeline all kinds of weird shit can happen, and on an infinite timeline you'd expect the number to continually approach an equal amount of heads and tails, but we don't have infinite time to measure coin flips. any time-slice in the middle you'd expect to see roughly even amounts, but it's still possible to see a run of outliers. also, once you have already started a sequence each next rung is just the beginning of another sequence of its own, and as the bell-curve is showing you the chances of it going to heads or tails on the next flip is equal.

the bell curve is the likelihood of a certain number of heads or tails after some set of sequences into the future. if you flip 49 heads then the bell curve suggests to you that flipping another 49 heads in a row is less likely than flipping an even number of heads or tails... but it's all still possible, and the next flip could still be a head or tail and either are just as likely as the other. if you chopped all but one level of rungs off your bell-curve then it would be showing you the probabilities of outcomes for your one sequence of flips about to occur.

maybe think of it like this. if after the first flip the coin was changed to something without heads or tails. a coin with one side red and the other green, perhaps. does the probability of the previous head or tail have any bearing on this one being green or red? they are unassociated values, until you be so bold as to suggest that green represents heads, or tails, and red the other... but then says who, and what is the point of doing that? what are your chances of a green or a red after flipping a head or tail?

what about after 49 heads, and you swap out the coin flip for a revolver with 3 bullets and 3 empty chambers. what's the chances of you eating lead after 49 heads, or 49 tails?

see? it has no bearing on the previous.

or, look at it in reverse. say not what IS the probability of some outcome, say what WAS the probability now that I'm at this junction. I've flipped 49 heads in a row... wow... what were the chances of that happening? that's what the bell-curve is describing to you. it's saying to you that it was less likely than getting roughly equal heads and tails, but you still did it anyway.

again, you can't use the previous sequence to guess the next flip. you can't look at the edges of a 50 flip bell curve to decide on your likely next flip. you CAN look at your 50 flip bell curve to see the likelihood of getting roughly even heads or tails over the next 50 flips. if you want to use the bell curve, after 49 flips, to decide on the likely outcome of the next flip then take your 50-flip bell curve, cut all but the first descent off the chart, and now you have your answer... 1 in 2 chance of it being heads, or tails. it has to, and will, be one or the other.

that was a terrible explanation, but whatever. your CHANCES are the pachinko game. the probabilities of different final counts of heads and tails after some number of flips is what the bell curve describes. it's a diagram of likely totals.. it's showing likely totals based on the 50/50 probability.

if it was somehow magically less likely to get a 50th head after 49 heads then the bell curve would suddenly drop-off at the edge of the curve on one side and have a weird pimple on the other.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #204
  • Oct 31, 2013 9:24am Oct 31, 2013 9:24am
Thanks for taking the time to explain, but this is all beyond my level of comprehension. Hopefully someone else will get some enlightenment out of it!
  • #205
  • Oct 31, 2013 9:53am Oct 31, 2013 9:53am
Quoting TheMaxx
Thanks for taking the time to explain, but this is all beyond my level of comprehension. Hopefully someone else will get some enlightenment out of it!
:S

think of the bell curve like a forecast on how many times i'm going to slap you with my left and right hand. it's likely that you'll get slapped equally by both sides, and less likely that i'll favor one side over the other... unless i'm a biased slapper (a weighted coin).

after 49 slaps, what are the chances of me kicking you in the dickhole with my left or right foot? 50/50.

the forecast gives you the likely totals, not the path that gets you to those totals. i could have slapped you an equal number of times, but have given you 25 slaps with my left hand before switching to my right, or some other combination. i could have alternated 10 at a time. i could have done all kinds of fun syncopations on your face. keep in mind that my hands feel nothing as they are robot hands from the future, so maybe my whimsy means today i slap you more with my left hand. if we did this tomorrow maybe i'd use my right more. over time, eventually, the totals are more likely to even out than for them to skew to one specific side. you don't know what my whimsy is going to be at any one time, so you take it for granted that it's likely that i'll slap you evenly, but it's possible that i'll skew to one side or the other and at some later date skew back the other way. the bell curve is just the forecast of slaps as of any moment... keeping mind that i specifically don't know how many times i'm allowed to slap you in a session. i'm just randomly wailing on your face.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #206
  • Oct 31, 2013 10:46am Oct 31, 2013 10:46am
try this on for size http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experim...tatistics.html

as they show, the curve is the number of paths to a certain outcome. it doesn't describe the individual chances of each flip. you are less likely to have a string of heads than an even amount... because there are more paths to reach an equal amount compared to reaching the outlier run of heads.

i hate stats.

so for something a little more tasty and different and kind of what you are trying to do, there's this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penney%27s_game
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #207
  • Oct 31, 2013 12:27pm Oct 31, 2013 12:27pm
Very entertaining.
  • #208
  • Nov 2, 2013 9:51pm Nov 2, 2013 9:51pm
Quoting hanover
{quote} I'm not convinced, unless you can at least quantify the risk of ruin for both cases, to back up your \"mathematical fact\". I suspect that the ROR is of a massively higher order when using the marty, than not. If so, then the marty has a HUGE bearing on success or failure. For example, it takes only 7 consecutive losses, doubling from a starting stake of $1, to blow a $100 bankroll (1+2+4+8+16+32+64 > 100). The probability of 7 consecutive losses over any sequence of 1,000 trials, given a 65% win rate, is approx 47% (see attached table)....

I understand that the risk is also much bigger, but martingale-ing would not be a permanent strategy.If you have a rock solid strategy in the first place, and use martingale over it, you could theoretically reach a million dollars before you blow anything up, so after than you could trade regularly with low risk.


The other method would be to withdraw 50% of your account after every weekend so that you could not have much to lose.

This is what gamblers do, they go play a high risk high win gambling game like black jack or poker and when they won 500k-1m$ they go and buy some bonds and put their money in the bank and live happily after.Must risk much in the first place then when you won you stop and invest only in low risk stuff.It's like you win the 300m euro lottery with 0.000001% chance of winning and then you are still greedy and spend all of the 300m euro to buy more lottery tickets, and when you run out of money you could not win the lottery again.

So after winning much you must retire or you might lose it all.This is whats martingale about, win quick,alot, and then stop playing.
"There's a sucker born every minute" - P.T. Barnum
  • #209
  • Edited 4:14pm Nov 3, 2013 3:47pm | Edited 4:14pm
Quoting Proximus
I understand that the risk is also much bigger, but martingale-ing would not be a permanent strategy.If you have a rock solid strategy in the first place, and use martingale over it, you could theoretically reach a million dollars before you blow anything up, so after than you could trade regularly with low risk.
Just because something is "theoretically" possible doesn't make it probable. It's theoretically possible that EURUSD might close above 1.9000 tomorrow, but anybody would be a fool to place an even money bet on it.

If you have a "rock solid strategy in the first place" (assuming such a thing exists), you'll win anyway, but only provided that you DON'T risk blowup by using dodgy MM like martingale. Hence your argument is completely backwards.

Quoting Proximus
The other method would be to withdraw 50% of your account after every weekend so that you could not have much to lose.
Makes no sense, for at least three reasons:
1. The less money in your account, the less number of double ups your account can survive, therefore all you're doing is increasing the risk of ruin.
2. The less money in your account, the smaller your position sizes, hence the smaller your returns will be.
3. You could easily blow your account before you get the chance to withdraw any money. From point 2, smaller returns effectively make your eventual target even more distant, increasing the probability that you'll blow your account before you reach that target.

Quoting Proximus
This is what gamblers do, they go play a high risk high win gambling game like black jack or poker and when they won 500k-1m$ they go and buy some bonds and put their money in the bank and live happily after.
Out of all those that try, how many actually succeed?

In the case of casino games, there are table limits that effectively make MM systems like martingale unusable.

Quoting Proximus
This is whats martingale about, win quick,alot, and then stop playing.
That works only if you're lucky enough to meet your target before your account blows out.

Of course there's no law against using forex to "play a high risk gambling game"; it's your money, and your choice.
But no serious professional trader thinks along the lines that you do.
  • #210
  • Nov 6, 2013 6:21am Nov 6, 2013 6:21am
Quoting hanover
{quote} Just because something is "theoretically" possible doesn't make it probable. It's theoretically possible that EURUSD might close above 1.9000 tomorrow, but anybody would be a fool to place an even money bet on it. If you have a "rock solid strategy in the first place" (assuming such a thing exists), you'll win anyway, but only provided that you DON'T risk blowup by using dodgy MM like martingale. Hence your argument is completely backwards. {quote} Makes no sense, for at least three reasons: 1. The less money in your account, the less number...

Ok i dont know what your view of martingale is but lets put it that way.The martingale is essentially a double or nothing game, double until you win or until you run out of cash to double more.

This is the basis of martingale, now, since we dont have infinite cash we cant double too much the lot size, so we "hope" that not many consecutive losses will happen.

And one way to reduce the consecutive losses is to increase the overall winrate.If you have 51% win rate with 1:1 RR, there is no way that you will have more consecutive losses than 2.The chance for 3 consecutive losses with 51% win rate is 11.7%, pretty low ey?
How about 4 consecutive losses? Only 6%. 5 consecutive losses ? 3%
So , here is how to limit the risk, use only level 5 martingale = lot ^ 5, so by starting with 0.01 lot for safety, you reach up a maximum of 0.32 lots if you lose 4 trades,which has a 6% chance.To lose the 5th is only 3%, so you are really safe this way.But 51% must be guaranteed, so since the market is so ever changing you have to gain higher win rate.

So you got there a 51% win rate and the martingale will give you drawdowns only 3% of the time, i think this is a fair reasonable method than naked martingale with no risk control whatsoever.Even the guys playing roulettes know this, and since the roulette is only a 48% system, this is by far better to win quickly.And remember martingale is really a 1 night millionairre method, after you win alot you must quit or risk losing it all.So thats why i said that you need to withdraw your cash.
"There's a sucker born every minute" - P.T. Barnum
  • #211
  • Nov 6, 2013 7:14am Nov 6, 2013 7:14am
Quoting Proximus
{quote} Ok i dont know what your view of martingale is but lets put it that way.The martingale is essentially a double or nothing game, double until you win or until you run out of cash to double more. This is the basis of martingale, now, since we dont have infinite cash we cant double too much the lot size, so we "hope" that not many consecutive losses will happen. And one way to reduce the consecutive losses is to increase the overall winrate.If you have 51% win rate with 1:1 RR, there is no way that you will have more consecutive losses than...
Are you really this incapable of seeing the nonsense that you are actually saying?

Do you TRULY, in your heart of hearts, through and through, actually believe that all of the twists and turns and what-if's and but-but's and however's are something new and unique to just you? Do you really think you are that clever and creative that you've somehow found an angle that MILLIONS of other, more competent, people have already thought of and torn to shreds over and over and over....

AND OVER....

You can't be THAT naive, surely!

IF this was as so black and white as you pretend then YOU WOULD DO IT TONIGHT! So, on your bike. We'll congratulate your massive gains in the morning.

Here's something for you to sit on and HONESTLY think about. You want to 'tamper' with your win-rate to give you some perceive edge against the risk of ruin inherent with martingale, right? Right. Not an ACTUAL edge, but just something that YOU BELIEVE somehow protects you against martingale crushing your account and soul, right?

Cool. So, you tamper with your win-rate. Now, what happened to your Risk : Reward when you did that? Tell us that EXTREMELY important piece of information. Tell us how much it is WHEN you lose! And tell us how lucky you really feel risking losing SO MUCH for likely SO LITTLE gains in comparison.

If you CAN lose, you WILL lose.

So, stop piss-farting around and pretending like you've cracked some magical math property. Go and make your riches and prove us all wrong. Prove that the millions of smarter people who tossed this idea away are all total retards.

IF you had some awesome win-rate, coupled with a Risk : Reward that wasn't devastating, then you'd have already PROVEN that your entries and exits themselves are taking advantage of some inefficiency and that you have an actual edge on the market, and you and all like you would have ZERO need or DESIRE to go ANYWHERE NEAR martingale because you'd KNOW that it was the absolute WORST thing a person who COULD make money would do.

EVERYTHING other than being honest with all of the relevant information and being honest with yourself is just pissing into the wind skewing numbers one way while ignoring the others. If you really think you have produced something of ANY merit here tonight I assure you that you are gravely mistaken.

Don't bring your "monkey-accounting" to a "math, market, and reality" fight.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #212
  • Nov 6, 2013 12:49pm Nov 6, 2013 12:49pm
Quoting Proximus
{quote} Ok i dont know what your view of martingale is but lets put it that way........
No offense, but you need to do some serious reading. Perhaps start with the articles in my links in post #162.

There is no point in continuing this discussion.
  • #213
  • Nov 6, 2013 9:02pm Nov 6, 2013 9:02pm
Quoting nubcake
{quote} Are you really this incapable of seeing the nonsense that you are actually saying? Do you TRULY, in your heart of hearts, through and through, actually believe that all of the twists and turns and what-if's and but-but's and however's are something new and unique to just you? Do you really think you are that clever and creative that you've somehow found an angle that MILLIONS of other, more competent, people have already thought of and torn to shreds over and over and over.... AND OVER.... You can't be THAT naive, surely! IF this was as...

Do you think that if i could do this in practice i didnt done it for now? The truth is that there exists NO system with 1:1 RR and 50%+ win rate, that is why i told in my first post that it is only theory.On paper it works out like magic,but on live trading it doesnt because there is no system that can handle that.Even if you pick trades randomly, the best you get is around 45% win rate, because of the spread + swap + slippage combo.This system is not designed for real life trading unfortunately, i just explained it for educational purpose, that martingale would work ONLY if X and Y conditions could be fulfulled.

The truth is they are not and cannot be ever, so it wont work, thats it.No system ever can generate those conditions because the market is not designed for it, if it would be then it would work like magic, but trust me the banks thought about this and they made it impossible for traders to win in this way.No wonder why they hire financial engineers and mathematicians to make these types of mathematical tricks impossible

If you dont believe me, lets make a deal, you find me a system with atleast 51% winrate and permanent 1:1 Reward Risk settings on each trade, and i will give 95% of my profit to you, how about that?
"There's a sucker born every minute" - P.T. Barnum
  • #214
  • Nov 7, 2013 12:55am Nov 7, 2013 12:55am
Quoting Proximus
that is why i told in my first post that it is only theory.
I have a theory that if I stand on my head while chanting Dr Dre lyrics that I'll gain magical powers. Who cares? A theory isn't worth the paper it's written on if it has no utility. You don't have a theory... what you have is a magical fairytale bedtime story. No, really, that's all it is. Just a nonsense make-believe story. Not a theory at all.


Quote
i just explained it for educational purpose, that martingale would work ONLY if X and Y conditions could be fulfulled. The truth is they are not and cannot be ever, so it wont work, thats it.

So what you are saying is that it's not for educational purposes at all, because really, who here was educated by your nonsense other than yourself when people have set you straight on matters seemingly beyond your comprehension? What you are really saying is you are just wasting everyone's time and posting stuff that has LESS than zero usefulness. It's not even so bad that it's useless, it is actually a cancer on peoples time to be wasting it on this topic.

Quote
but trust me the banks thought about this and they made it impossible for traders to win in this way. No wonder why they hire financial engineers and mathematicians to make these types of mathematical tricks impossible

This is so dumb, and you are dumb for typing it. I can't believe you would say that with any sort of honesty behind it, and the fact that you have just goes to show how sad this whole line of conversation with you is. Oh, and (insert... smiley face haha we're best buds you are funny lol this is all cute and hilarious... here).

You seem to be under the illusion that you are clever or something. You are not. At all. We've now crossed the line from you being simply dumb and naive on a topic to you now being intellectually insulting to the people around you who have better things to do than read the crap from someone writing tin-foil hat type sentences like the above, and this is after you've already polluted the forum with your so-called 'theory' no less. What a champ.

You probably subscribe to the notion that your stops are of some interest to your broker, as though your microlot means shit to anyone. My goodness, the hubris is starting to show.

Quote
If you dont believe me, lets make a deal, you find me a system with atleast 51% winrate and permanent 1:1 Reward Risk settings on each trade, and i will give 95% of my profit to you, how about that?

Who the fuck do you think I am? Do I sound like I'm having trouble keeping-up here? Are you trying to prove a point here? Are you, in all honesty, trying to now prove something to me? Maybe go back and read the shit you've written, and the wasted replies people like myself and Hanover have given.

It's cute that you are now trying to educate us on exactly the types of things we've wasted our time trying to explain to you while countering the garbage you have been posting (oh, I'm sorry, I mean the 'educational theory' you have been posting). How embarrassing for you.

Let's make different deal. You stop embarrassing yourself and acting the fool on this forum with inane posts like in this thread, and in return I won't consider you to be an absolute muppet and instead will just consider you to be too new to this shit to know any better than to act like someone who just read babypips for the first time. We don't need to shake on it. You don't need to agree or disagree. It's done.

Grow up, read a book, do some introspection, and get some learning done. Your intellectual immaturity will not serve you here, nor in the markets. We are not amused by you.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #215
  • Nov 7, 2013 1:03am Nov 7, 2013 1:03am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmlscCK7E5c">
Inserted Video


What is the Martingale System? Some traders and investors mistakenly believe in trying to win back their losses. This system is known as the martingale system. Essentially meaning that you double down on losing bets until you win. The problem with this strategy is that in order to achieve consistent profitability, you need to have very deep pockets; in some cases, they must be infinitely deep. Fundamentally the first thing that should be noted with martingale trading systems is that these trading strategies are very risky in nature.

  1. Category
    Education
  2. License
    Standard YouTube License

  • #216
  • Nov 14, 2013 6:27am Nov 14, 2013 6:27am
Quoting Proximus
{quote} If you dont believe me, lets make a deal, you find me a system with atleast 51% winrate and permanent 1:1 Reward Risk settings on each trade, and i will give 95% of my profit to you, how about that?
Hi Proximus, how about I show you system with high winrate..did your offer 95% of profit still valid?

my opinion still smart martingale works in forex...not normal martingale...I did practice them my live trades too...

martingale works charms if you know how to determine trend direction...that the main key...
if you can find that, very very low chance for long string of losses...that's it..

think like this...101100010001100100100011110101100100100100110010100100101101101001011011010010110111
1 is win
0 is loss
if your string of 0's can be limited as above binary example...you are in PROFIT..

think out of box..
because all smart people are in the box..to win you need to be smarter..hahaha
  • #217
  • Nov 14, 2013 7:40am Nov 14, 2013 7:40am
Quoting akukaya
{quote} Hi Proximus, how about I show you system with high winrate..did your offer 95% of profit still valid? my opinion still smart martingale works in forex...not normal martingale...I did practice them my live trades too... martingale works charms if you know how to determine trend direction...that the main key... if you can find that, very very low
chance for long string of losses...that's it.. think like this...101100010001100100100011110101100100100100110010100100101101101001011011010010110111 1 is win 0 is loss if your string of 0's...


And how do you avoid strings of losses ?
  • #218
  • Nov 14, 2013 9:28am Nov 14, 2013 9:28am
The martingale fallacy comes from the fact that the expectancy of the limit is not equal to the limit of the expectancy.

What does this mean?
Suppose you have a edge-less game like a fair coin flipping with the same reward as risk. win rate 50%, R:R = 1.

Because you have a non-null probability of winning the probability of the sequence (loss)*win is exponentially decreasing towards 0 with the length of the sequence. Here the star denotes the Kleene operator: a repeatition of 0, 1 or more but finite losses. To the limit the probability of winning is 1. This comes from the fact that the probability of a string of an infinity of losers is 0. If you take each group of (loss)*win the limit is 1 and the average (expectancy) is trivially 1; since you average a sequence of groups each making 1, their average is 1.

The expectancy of the limit is 1.


But you can partition the results differently. In the doubling martingale you will have a set of trades with a bet size of 1. Another set of trades with a bet size of 2. Another set of trades with a bet size of 4 and so on with 8, 16, 32, ...

If the game is repeated long enough each group will converge towards its expectancy. This expectancy is 0. Each group wins its expectancy multiplied by its bet size. To the limit we have 0x1 + 0x2 + 0x4 + 0x8 + ... + 0x2^n + ... = 0

The limit of the expectancy is 0.



But! If I win for sure (probability 1) in the first case, why can't I make money?
Because the win for sure comes with a infinite risk. To the limit the R:R falls towards 0! To state it differently you win for sure an amount of 0!

akukaya said that if you can limit the number of losses to a rather small number, it works. But it doesn't work because of the martingale. It works because of a real edge: the capability of limiting the length of the sequence of losers.
No greed. No fear. Just maths.
  • #219
  • Nov 16, 2013 2:44am Nov 16, 2013 2:44am
Quoting PipMeUp
akukaya said that if you can limit the number of losses to a rather small number, it works. But it doesn't work because of the martingale. It works because of a real edge: the capability of limiting the length of the sequence of losers.
Hi PipMeUp,

It's half true!

To me it works because of combination of the real edge(smart system) + martingale.

example: if the string of system trades results sequence like 1011000100011001001000111101 01100100100100110010100100101101101

if you use same lotsize for each trade, you are not in profit!!
if you combine it with the martingale lotsizing, you will gain..

That's the reason I think it works not only because of the edge system..
  • #220
  • Nov 16, 2013 2:50am Nov 16, 2013 2:50am
Quoting metta87
{quote} And how do you avoid strings of losses ?
still keep it for myself...thinking to reveal it one day..

something I still figure out the disadvantage if I reveal my edge...
So far, I check out in the web and forum, nothing similar...
1 trader viewing now