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
