Diskusija

This is my mother's account. She initially gave me $7,000 which went into an IBFX U.S. account with 1:50 leverage. It went from $7K to $8,353 in 2 months. Then I moved the account to a broker with 1:200 where it continues to grow.

The goal of this account is 10% per month average. If it overshoots, so be it, but if I notice that it consistently overshoots I will lower the risk/gain to 10%/month. Upon reaching 100% of the initial investment, I will let her withdraw $7K, and will keep going with the same goal in mind until the account either blows up or grows infinitely.

This is the recommended setup for any managed account, which mixes consistent results with risk management.

Just a quick que...why on earth would you scale back to achieve 10% if you're achieving more?

   AFFx posted:
   Just a quick que...why on earth would you scale back to achieve 10% if you're achieving more?

I think this is a wise decision. Although you might be tempted to make more money more quickly, you should always be prepared for the inevitable. With big gains comes big risk.

Why, because it is not about achieving, it is about preserving. Achieving, I can achieve 30, 60% monthly...but doing it consistently...that's just gambling.

By cutting from 12 to 10% by lowering my lots from 0.02 to 0.01, I may very well be saving the account from disaster.

nice score for three months , I am working on a system that makes 10% minimum and stady , ... in 5 years it will be good money ...

Not three months, if you would have read post #1 you would know that this account is a continuation of this:
https://www.myfxbook.com/members/gerald325i/xferred-momslow-risk/125358
Which made 19.59% from June to August...so 5 months, not 3...

By no means a seasoned account, but I wanted to set the record straight :)

Since it is a martingale/grid system, definitely a wise choice. With low lot sizes such systems can be quite viable, although not my risk appetite :)

Looks like your risk appetite is 2 months worth of history data on your 20% a month EA shown with a 500% leverage but offered in a PAMM with 200% leverage, not the same results I would suspect...but we all trust our own systems don't we?

Good thing is, I'm openly showing how I've taken my mom's initial $7K to $15,971 in 7 months...and I don't gamble with mom's money!

AND I find the name martingale offensive, as this is a pretty good scalper for anyone looking at around 80% winning average. It just uses levels as a safety net WHEN things don't go right.

   gerald325i posted:
   Looks like your risk appetite is 2 months worth of history data on your 20% a month EA shown with a 500% leverage but offered in a PAMM with 200% leverage, not the same results I would suspect...but we all trust our own systems don't we?

Good thing is, I'm openly showing how I've taken my mom's initial $7K to $15,971 in 7 months...and I don't gamble with mom's money!

AND I find the name martingale offensive, as this is a pretty good scalper for anyone looking at around 80% winning average. It just uses levels as a safety net WHEN things don't go right.

thats true Gerald

   gerald325i posted:
   Looks like your risk appetite is 2 months worth of history data on your 20% a month EA shown with a 500% leverage but offered in a PAMM with 200% leverage, not the same results I would suspect...but we all trust our own systems don't we?

Good thing is, I'm openly showing how I've taken my mom's initial $7K to $15,971 in 7 months...and I don't gamble with mom's money!

AND I find the name martingale offensive, as this is a pretty good scalper for anyone looking at around 80% winning average. It just uses levels as a safety net WHEN things don't go right.

Sorry Gerald, your tone suggests I offended you, but I in no way intended my response as such, let me clarify.

I think the definition of martingale systems is that they don't/barely use a stoploss, only to cover power outages and such, and use lot size increases to quickly recover from a losing trade the moment a reversal/retrace is detected. Different systems use varying methods with varying effectiveness in detecting these retraces and are also very different in how aggressive they are in raising their lot sizes. I believe your system meets this definition, especially at the moments it hit a bit of drawdown, I assume it is a version of Evolution?

Now, with such systems, recovery generally always happens at some point in time, but it requires margin. Most traders set their systems too aggressive and use too large lot sizes leaving little margin, and blowing their accounts/margin before a retrace/swing can happen. I was complimenting you on being strategic and not doing that.

So, please accept my apologies if I seemed offensive, I did not mean to be. And thanks for pointing out the error in my leverage setting, I honestly hadn't looked at that at all when I used the automatic account thingy wizard.

Also, I'm not running 'an EA', we're running a portfolio, it's been super effective, and I feel my account statement will be representative for years to come. However, I also agree that from an outside point of view 2 months is obviously not a lot of data, but we've all got to start somewhere :)

Not a problem, and I do understand what you meant and yes, levels do pose a problem with margin and drawdown, hence limiting the lots and trading cautiously pays off.

No you did not offend me, although some people here like to come and bash systems with the idea of promoting their own strategies, so I tend to overreact to -even- constructive criticism.

But yeah, I'm interested to see how your project develops in the long run!

Good luck

Gerald

Ok, glad we understand each other, I agree; lots of people that randomly bash things, I'm afraid that is the nature of the internet :(

Anyway, best of luck to you too, cheers,

Jos.