It's fascinating watching a fish rationalize a heater. Thank you for this thread, OP.

Your comment that guys losing 70% lifetime and suddenly making 600% in a month "might have gotten better over time" and therefore we can't use it as an example of how big a heater a fish can go on and how high the variance is in forex, is probably my favorite part.

Also, I agree with jb. The sample size needed to prove a winner to 99% chance in options is about 10 trades, if the person is highly talented.

If they're not it's thousands of trades. In leveraged, low-return-at-best forex, it'll be well in the tens of thousands.

I realize those are contradicting statements on my part. I get it. What I was wanting to impart (and perhaps not articulating it well enough) is that one should suspend judgement on either side of the skill/luck viewpoint until a time where it is definitive to render such a judgement (i.e. the trader in question has either gone bust or produced consistent returns on a multi-year basis). Until that time, anything you or I assert about it is purely conjecture.

If he's scamming, he's doing it extremely wrong....

Need some 100k bills, 2 rented Ferrari and 3 virgins....

^ Lol. So tru.

in b4 TS forgets about statistical hypothesis testing....

I would say everybody is routing for Candy, indications are very good at the moment. PnL is going in the right direction, market is picking up, September is coming. Windy times, routing for a long-shot home-run.*

We would all like to see some more explanations and pics, especially the wrong trades. Think there is lot to be learned there.

*get it? long-shot - long-vol a.k.a. momentum betting? ts,ts,ts....

I think implied in my commentary is the amusing improbableness of Candy's statistical model in claiming that the -70% lifetime, +600% month aren't very likely losers on a heater.

I'm definitely rooting for the guy.

Probabilistically, 100% traders are losers, depending on your stopping and scaling strategy. If you trade forever and your only stop logic is to trade until busto, then as long as variance > 0 and you can lose on a trade, the probability of ever going bust is 100%. Humans are not immortal, so slightly more realistically one's expected lifespan determines probability of ever going bust.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

This isn't true.

Ask and ye shall receive...

Here is a loser from today. After my winning buy stop from overnight, I gave about 3/4 of it back this morning.

I like to look at the hourly chart first, then zoom in to the 5min chart for an entry. Here is what I saw on the hourly as a potential sign that buyers were coming back to life.



After the close of that hourly candle I switched to 5min chart for confirmation of bullish momentum on the low time frame.



I placed my SL below the most recent level of support, but it was taken out a couple hours later.



Price continued down a bit and consolidated at the 1.1975 level (where it still currently resides)

This isn't true.

Well yeah obv if risk of ruin is > 0, you'll eventually bust.

Took a look at some of those forex factory pnl curves. Nearly everyone is martingaling. Just blindly making markets in forex seems to not work.

grimReaper,
The below is a false statement:
Consider an extreme case:
0.1% of stack per trade, average return is a 100 bagger with 99.99% probability.

Is it your claim that it's 100% certain that this guy is going busto eventually? It meets all of the criteria in the your post.

This is doubly unforgivable because you don't even need an extreme example to show that your claim is false. There are risk of ruin formulas for the infinite case. Plug some numbers into them and see what pops out. For positive expectation and low variance per trade, they come out to near zero risk of ruin over infinite trades.

It's even worse because this should be intuitively obvious.

It's even worse again because I told you this and you didn't even consider that you might be wrong when I did.

Yes. As n, the number of trades tends to infinity, and the only stopping condition is going bust, then you go bust with 100% probability. Everything happens in the long run. Even losing 1000000 trades that have 99.99% of winning.

If you believe this discussion is too theoretical, consider that most traders risk a lot more than 0.1% and don't have anywhere near 99.99% success. And I also added the part about life expectation.

Near zero risk is not the same as zero risk.

Speaking of obvious, that's what jb said in regards to my post.

Level 1 (2?) thinking.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

You're tripling down even after I tell you you're wrong and then explain why. Amazing. Just amazing.

Your statement above is false. Here is an academic paper for you.

Ruin Probability In Infinite Time

You could look at the equations and realize that an infinite sum of non-zero anything does not go to 100% if the values decrease faster than the trials add up. I'm not sure on your familiarity with math, but this is failry basic limit theory. For example, read this high school primer. An infinite series can converge or diverge; you'll find that positive expectation with low SD will converge to a number rather than diverge to infinity.

But there's not even any need for that. I'll make it really simple. This paper above called "Probability in Infinite Time" would be unnecessary if ruin was certain in infinite time. The paper would say "100%".

It's also not 100%, which i s your claim.
If jb wants to join you in being wrong, that's his prerogative.

I guess all of the casino's should close down their slots and table games before they meet their impending doom (rolls eyes)

You're (he) is somehow mistaking the fact that the risk of ruin is always a > 0 with the idea that ruin is an inevitability. Or he's for some reason assuming that this is a perpetual martingale? derpa derpa

I asked before, seems candy man didn't reply. What's the standard error of your trades?

Instead of posting some random paper which has limited relevance, if you're as good as math as you claim, why don't you just prove it? I genuinely want to see this.

Let B_n be your bankroll after n trades. Let u be a profit target, d be stop loss, both which are percent of B_n. The stop loss may have to be max(m, B_n * d), i.e. a min bet, where m is some constant, to prevent weird behavior near 0. You can assume d = u, if easier.

Or if the min(m, B_n * d) part is too hard, how about define busto has hitting 0.5 * B_0?


Yes, I also took that Calculus I course.

Uh, do you know that some casinos, despite all the literature and models that's out there, do go bankrupt right?

I didn't answer because I have no idea. I'm less than 300 trades in at this point.

CHALLENGE COMPLETE

Here's a quick video for verification purposes:

Much easier to make money in forex than land something real on OKC/POF !

No ****ing kidding... I have a better chance of 3x-ing this challenge for $100K

Well played, but I would still bet against you.

Good job!

Regarding the losing trade you posted: look at M15 and you will see it was just a pullback to the consolidation range from where it broke out. They want to stop out all breakout players who put their SL to BE too early... I would only look for longs after price acceptance within that zone. Your long was too early for my taste. I would wait for confirmation and then buy the pullback.