Novice Question
Novice Question
I was lucky enough to find a mentor who has worked at some pretty well known places in the world of systematic futures trading.
He was going over some of my test results and giving me feedback.
One of the things he was concerned with is that I'm using a fixed fractional position sizer and my risk per trade is 2%. I'm testing 66 different instruments and thus if I am fully positioned I'm risking 132%!
Obviously not ideal and I couldn't find too much wrong with his logic so I'm wondering how to respond and/or change my method. What I'm using has no stops but enters/exits the market based on an indicator crossing a threshold.
I've toyed with different risk managers but since I have no stops having a hard time quantifying how to limit risk and find maximum exposure that fits better.
Appreciate any comments.
He was going over some of my test results and giving me feedback.
One of the things he was concerned with is that I'm using a fixed fractional position sizer and my risk per trade is 2%. I'm testing 66 different instruments and thus if I am fully positioned I'm risking 132%!
Obviously not ideal and I couldn't find too much wrong with his logic so I'm wondering how to respond and/or change my method. What I'm using has no stops but enters/exits the market based on an indicator crossing a threshold.
I've toyed with different risk managers but since I have no stops having a hard time quantifying how to limit risk and find maximum exposure that fits better.
Appreciate any comments.
-
- Roundtable Knight
- Posts: 427
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:12 am
- Location: once again in the UK
Sector limits maybe --- do you have a limit on highly correlated markets - even its as simple as in the grains sector, the precious metals sector, the equity market sector - i only have max two positions open?
eg; you can only be long the Dow and the Dax but not the dow, the dax and the FTSE
However if everything has to be open as its always in the market system then why not just reduce a proportion of the two already open as longs as a third is opened in the same direction that is correlated (or in the same sector) (as everything seems correlated these days).
If all three are triggered the same day then just reduce the individual amounts to ensure a consistent sector risk......see if that makes a difference to the numbers
eg; you can only be long the Dow and the Dax but not the dow, the dax and the FTSE
However if everything has to be open as its always in the market system then why not just reduce a proportion of the two already open as longs as a third is opened in the same direction that is correlated (or in the same sector) (as everything seems correlated these days).
If all three are triggered the same day then just reduce the individual amounts to ensure a consistent sector risk......see if that makes a difference to the numbers
True, it's volatility weighted but if so and I'm risking 2% on each trade and say I'm in 66 positions that's .02 x 66 = 132% of equity or am I missing something.LeviF wrote:Do you really have 132% risk when fully loaded? I assume you are risking 2% based on volatility, what is your avg losing trade in %?
The test results I'm comfortable with but when this guy brings up that point its a bit eye opening. My avg losing trade is only 1.37% (winners a shade under 5%)
Considering his extensive experience he basically said my return/risk was in his words, "not commercially viable" although that's not necessarily what I was going for but interesting to know. Mar ratio is about .99 which is less than I hoped but # of variables is low and has been tested over nearly 30 yrs of data.
Basically I have no correlation risk manager or max units in there.
I'm using Trading Blox but must be missing something on max allowed risk as a % of equity.trackstar wrote:What testing platform are you using that doesnt have a maximum allowed risk as a percent of equity?
What isnt commercially viable about winning 3.64:1?
Ha, yeah the win/loss ratio is good in that terms but he doesn't seem to think investor would be sticking around for the drawdowns I'm seeing nor does he think I would be able to stomach the same as the trader.
Thanks Sluggo, I actually have toyed around with that block before. I actually just ran a test and stepped the Risk Manager values but am getting the same results for every test. Basically the RM is not being recognized.sluggo wrote:A quick search on the Trader's Roundtable found this image, in the "Blox Marketplace" section.
(I added the Red annotations myself, for this reply. They weren't in the original).
Any thoughts?
-
- Roundtable Knight
- Posts: 2038
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:52 am
- Location: San Marcos, CA
Consider using a position count limiter to limit the number of positions, which will limit the max account loading when using market orders, and something less with Stop and Limit execution orders.
With fixed rate sizing, and with a max account loading rate goal you won't want to exceed, you can easily determine how many positions to allow.
When limiting positions using a Max Rate, or a Max Count process, and the sequence of instruments is left unchanged throughout the simulation, the symbols arriving earlier will be given an opportunity to trade more often over the symbols arriving later.
If none of the above sounds interesting, reduce the fixed rate until it achieves your max account loading goal. This last approach will favor orders with a lower risk rate, which tends to be restrictive to some symbols.
With fixed rate sizing, and with a max account loading rate goal you won't want to exceed, you can easily determine how many positions to allow.
When limiting positions using a Max Rate, or a Max Count process, and the sequence of instruments is left unchanged throughout the simulation, the symbols arriving earlier will be given an opportunity to trade more often over the symbols arriving later.
If none of the above sounds interesting, reduce the fixed rate until it achieves your max account loading goal. This last approach will favor orders with a lower risk rate, which tends to be restrictive to some symbols.
Is there anything like this in Blox Marketplace? I wasn't able to find it if it was. I tried Unit Limiter but it wasn't working either. Any reason for that? I looked through the coding and didn't notice that stops were necessary for the correlated unit limiter.Roger Rines wrote:Consider using a position count limiter to limit the number of positions, which will limit the max account loading when using market orders, and something less with Stop and Limit execution orders.
With fixed rate sizing, and with a max account loading rate goal you won't want to exceed, you can easily determine how many positions to allow.
When limiting positions using a Max Rate, or a Max Count process, and the sequence of instruments is left unchanged throughout the simulation, the symbols arriving earlier will be given an opportunity to trade more often over the symbols arriving later.
If none of the above sounds interesting, reduce the fixed rate until it achieves your max account loading goal. This last approach will favor orders with a lower risk rate, which tends to be restrictive to some symbols.
-
- Roundtable Knight
- Posts: 2038
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:52 am
- Location: San Marcos, CA
I took some time tonight to look and couldn't find anything that would work with orders that don't have stops. It was the "No Protective Exit Stop" comment that motivated the comments to use a position counter.HWG wrote:[snip]
Is there anything like this in Blox Marketplace?
I just looked at the code in the Unit Limiter and it is focused on filtering based upon Segment or Market classification. Protective exits are not used this module.HWG wrote:[snip]
I tried Unit Limiter but it wasn't working either. Any reason for that? I looked through the coding and didn't notice that stops were necessary for the correlated unit limiter.
This isn't the type of module that will count and limit positions. Position count limiters are not hard to create, and they can help you limit how much exposure you allow. They can also be used to ensure you don't exceed a Stock/ETF account where Margin agreements are not allowed.
Limiting positions for market type orders is more predictable because market orders have a reliable fill. Order executions that use On_Stop or On_Limit orders don't have a predictable fill so they are less reliable to achieve a predictable active position count.
Without a position count limiter, the only other option I can think of is to limit the size of the portfolio.