Hi Mark,
Glad to hear you don't bet the farm. ^_^
I was
trading probably before the 'Wizard' writers were out of
high
school.
And I believe Richard Dennis, whose successes were
kind of the
inspiration for those books, eventually tapped out, as in
blew the
whole bankroll. Pardon me if I have that wrong.
Nobody
gets those returns consistently, and the basic reason behind
that
statement being clearly true should be obvious: The geometrical
growth of
the money would soon have such a successful trader with
such a large
amount of capital that percentage return gets
progressively more and more
difficult to keep in the stratosphere.
Eventually, position sizes become
a problem because of market
liquidity. Or did you harken onto the grail?
^_-
Look at Warren Buffet's problem ... too much cash, not
enough
qualifying opportunities. And he's not even a trader.
Of
course, you could be talking un-compounded. But I still have
serious
doubts about sustainability.
I stand by my statement that outsized
returns, particularly the
super-jumbo outsized, require outsized risk. I
haven't seen any
cases in which that risk didn't ultimately pose a
problem. And I
also stand by my opinion that percentage returns in that
league are
unsustainable. If they were not, a very few managers would
be
managing most of the world's capital. But that is not the
case.
Yuki
Tuesday, June 20, 2006, 9:36:27 AM, you
wrote:
MH> Yuki:
MH> Thanks for your kind warning.
However, you got it wrong. I am trading a strict mechanical system including
position sizing algorithm. So "bet it all" is not applicable here. There
were no big
bets and no big wins either. Just small bets and small
wins/losses, and a lot of them. Since you stated "nobody gets those kind of
returns", I would recommend that you read a few of those
wizards/hitters
books to get some inspiration.
MH> Good trading,
MH> - Mark
H
