Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

choubix

Question on Kelly Formula : Positive Expectancy But...

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone,

 

I am currently reading about the Kelly formula on various website.

I now understand better that money management is a powerful tool to use when trading.

 

However something escapes me:

Assuming one has a trading system tat delivers a positive expectancy BUT there are fewer winning trades than losing trades, how to use the kelly formula??

 

e.g:

 

winning trades : 45%

losing trades : 55%

 

average win: 2,000

average loss: 1,000

 

expectancy is positive with : 0.45 * 2,000 - 0.55 * 1,000 = 350

 

Yet the K% would be negative because there are only 45% winning trades.

 

K% = (0.45 - 0.55) / 2 (where 2 is derived from 2,000 / 1,000)

 

Is there a more "refined/updated" Kelly formula that addresses this issue or this kind of bet should be considered a bad trade and should be avoided ?

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually I also made a mistake as I wrote : K% = (0.45 - 0.55) / 2 (where 2 is derived from 2,000 / 1,000)

 

when actually it should be:

 

K% = 0.45 - ( 0.55 / 2 )

 

which returns a positive result (17.5% as you mentioned equtrader)

 

Tks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
actually I also made a mistake as I wrote : K% = (0.45 - 0.55) / 2 (where 2 is derived from 2,000 / 1,000)

 

when actually it should be:

 

K% = 0.45 - ( 0.55 / 2 )

 

which returns a positive result (17.5% as you mentioned equtrader)

 

Tks!

 

ur welcome with a delay:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello everyone,

 

I am currently reading about the Kelly formula on various website.

I now understand better that money management is a powerful tool to use when trading.

 

However something escapes me:

Assuming one has a trading system tat delivers a positive expectancy BUT there are fewer winning trades than losing trades, how to use the kelly formula??

 

e.g:

 

winning trades : 45%

losing trades : 55%

 

average win: 2,000

average loss: 1,000

 

expectancy is positive with : 0.45 * 2,000 - 0.55 * 1,000 = 350

 

Yet the K% would be negative because there are only 45% winning trades.

 

K% = (0.45 - 0.55) / 2 (where 2 is derived from 2,000 / 1,000)

 

Is there a more "refined/updated" Kelly formula that addresses this issue or this kind of bet should be considered a bad trade and should be avoided ?

 

Thanks!

 

The Kelly formula is only useful if you are taking on a single trade at once. You will not make money if you play a single trade of the same strategy at one time unless you are highly leveraged or you have a substantial cash reserve. Also you will take larger hits to your cash reserve. It's a good lesson for making basic trades, but it is really poor in terms of actual risk management. I know for a fact that Edward Thorpe used to use it, but he was old school and there have been so many innovations since then.

 

For example, if you play 5 games of poker that are within your bankroll instead of one you are diversifying away some of the risk. On the other hand, when you try to do this with stocks there is a correlation of every single security to every single other security and you need to acknowledge this other wise you will loose a lot of money.

 

It's also important to pay attention to skewness in return distributions (not accounted for in the kelly criteria) and Kurtosis (which Long Term Capital Management ignored and caused them to be ruined).

 

Here are two popular books on portfolio management:

 

Managing Investment Portfolios: A Dynamic Process (CFA Institute Investment Series)

 

The CFA institute publications are usually very good but this book includes extra types of portfolio management which you might not need.

 

You may want to look at this one which is cheaper and its highly rated:

The Intelligent Asset Allocator: How to Build Your Portfolio to Maximize Returns and Minimize Risk

 

 

You should realize that a lot of the theory that is in these can actually be applied to modern portfolio theory. I also highly recommend that you look at some of Edward Thorp's papers, although they are highly outdated.

 

[http://edwardothorp.com/id10.html]Edward Thorps publications[/url]

 

 

Hopefully that helps!

 

-Silentdud

Edited by silentdud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a modified Ralph Vince optimal-f that I call Ultimate-F, because it avoids the high risk of ruin. It is much better than the Kelly formula and still compounds your results dramatically. YES, it works great with 45% or even 40% as long as your CPC Index is greater than 1.2.

 

 

Hello everyone,

 

I am currently reading about the Kelly formula on various website.

I now understand better that money management is a powerful tool to use when trading.

 

However something escapes me:

Assuming one has a trading system tat delivers a positive expectancy BUT there are fewer winning trades than losing trades, how to use the kelly formula??

 

e.g:

 

winning trades : 45%

losing trades : 55%

 

average win: 2,000

average loss: 1,000

 

expectancy is positive with : 0.45 * 2,000 - 0.55 * 1,000 = 350

 

Yet the K% would be negative because there are only 45% winning trades.

 

K% = (0.45 - 0.55) / 2 (where 2 is derived from 2,000 / 1,000)

 

Is there a more "refined/updated" Kelly formula that addresses this issue or this kind of bet should be considered a bad trade and should be avoided ?

 

Thanks!

Edited by MadMarketScientist
removed marketing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see a few problems with optimal-f from just a quick look at it though. It is guilty of the same problem that problem that the Kelly criterion is, i.e. not looking at the instances around the mean, only at the estimated values. Does the modified version fix this?? Do you have any links describing its calculation?

 

As far as I can tell it is only useful for ball parking and quick, on the spot math.

 

I looked at this for information on calculating the original "optimal" f.

Contango: Optimal f

 

Thank you.

Silentdud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a chart of the results ... I can't reveal the calculations, as, unlike Vince, mine is proprietary and I offer it to my students without revealing the code. My code uses the actual trade values and calculates the number of shares to put on for the next trade. To use the code you must have a minimum of 30 actual trades to put into the spreadhseet.

Sunny

 

I can see a few problems with optimal-f from just a quick look at it though. It is guilty of the same problem that problem that the Kelly criterion is, i.e. not looking at the instances around the mean, only at the estimated values. Does the modified version fix this?? Do you have any links describing its calculation?

 

As far as I can tell it is only useful for ball parking and quick, on the spot math.

 

I looked at this for information on calculating the original "optimal" f.

Contango: Optimal f

 

Thank you.

Silentdud

Edited by MadMarketScientist
removed marketing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used Kelly for strategy which trades by single instrument, I see that perfomance became better only on 10%-20%. is it normal?, or it should gives better upgrates for perfomance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used Kelly for strategy which trades by single instrument, I see that perfomance became better only on 10%-20%. is it normal?, or it should gives better upgrates for perfomance?

It's not really improving your returns, i.e. your immediate ones, it should be improving them over time, but the idea is the same as controlling and making sure your capital reserve isnt depleted so much that you can't regrow it.

You may want to look at the Safety first criteria. If you are looking for simple management that could be up your alley. It depends on how much money that you are managing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with using the Kelly formula, or any other formula that considers closed trades is that there is no consideration of what happens DURING the trade - in other words, the drawdown that can and does occur while waiting for the system to close out of the position.

 

Not only is there the drawdown that happens during one trade, but there is the accumulated drawdown from a series of trades. Even if your system produced 100% profitable trades on a closed trade basis, if the intra-trade drawdown is large, it is going to cause you much grief and it is likely you will bail on your trade and system well before your system pulls you out.

 

I use TradeStation to backtest my systems, and always look at the Strategy Performance Report. Then I look at the Max Drawdown Intra-day Peak to Valley calculation.

 

I then allocate 10x this number to trade 1 futures contract. This way, when this drawdown occurs again (and it WILL) I will only be down 10% in my account equity - a number I have found I can handle without getting extremely upset. If your account is small, you might be able to handle up to 30% drawdown before you panic, but as your account size increases, it becomes increasingly more difficult to take drawdown of this magnitude.

 

If you get extremely upset, and everyone has a different point where this occurs - but it does and will occur, you will 1) exit your trade at the wrong time, 2) be unable to sleep, 3) stop trading your system, or 4) some other irrational behavior. Have you ever just said, "I can't take this anymore", and just sold everything?

 

If you are overleveraged and trading futures, you may just run out of equity and get a margin call - and that's the end of your trading either permanently or temporarily.

 

The trouble with a system that shows a 2:1 profit factor, that is, winning trades make double the losing trades, but you have fewer than 50% winning trades, is that you have a lot of losing trades - tough to handle emotionally. Also, the winning trades come from a subset of the whole universe of closed trades, and this might mean that the winners were based on some unusual price behavior not llikely to occur in the future.

 

The ideal system has maximum gains and minimum drawdown, and ideally, seldom has a losing day.

 

The simplest example of a system that is almost impossible to trade, yet looks great on paper (compute the Kelly formula) , is a buy and hold. It may have 1 profitable trade,and no losing trades. However, the intra-day drawdown peak to valley might be HUGE. That's what will bury you as a trader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Mammy Yokum said: "Truer words were never spoke."

The larger your trade size and the higher the account value, the more likely you are to sabotage your system.

 

 

The problem with using the Kelly formula, or any other formula that considers closed trades is that there is no consideration of what happens DURING the trade - in other words, the drawdown that can and does occur while waiting for the system to close out of the position.

 

Not only is there the drawdown that happens during one trade, but there is the accumulated drawdown from a series of trades. Even if your system produced 100% profitable trades on a closed trade basis, if the intra-trade drawdown is large, it is going to cause you much grief and it is likely you will bail on your trade and system well before your system pulls you out.

 

I use TradeStation to backtest my systems, and always look at the Strategy Performance Report. Then I look at the Max Drawdown Intra-day Peak to Valley calculation.

 

I then allocate 10x this number to trade 1 futures contract. This way, when this drawdown occurs again (and it WILL) I will only be down 10% in my account equity - a number I have found I can handle without getting extremely upset. If your account is small, you might be able to handle up to 30% drawdown before you panic, but as your account size increases, it becomes increasingly more difficult to take drawdown of this magnitude.

 

If you get extremely upset, and everyone has a different point where this occurs - but it does and will occur, you will 1) exit your trade at the wrong time, 2) be unable to sleep, 3) stop trading your system, or 4) some other irrational behavior. Have you ever just said, "I can't take this anymore", and just sold everything?

 

If you are overleveraged and trading futures, you may just run out of equity and get a margin call - and that's the end of your trading either permanently or temporarily.

 

The trouble with a system that shows a 2:1 profit factor, that is, winning trades make double the losing trades, but you have fewer than 50% winning trades, is that you have a lot of losing trades - tough to handle emotionally. Also, the winning trades come from a subset of the whole universe of closed trades, and this might mean that the winners were based on some unusual price behavior not llikely to occur in the future.

 

The ideal system has maximum gains and minimum drawdown, and ideally, seldom has a losing day.

 

The simplest example of a system that is almost impossible to trade, yet looks great on paper (compute the Kelly formula) , is a buy and hold. It may have 1 profitable trade,and no losing trades. However, the intra-day drawdown peak to valley might be HUGE. That's what will bury you as a trader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Be careful who you blame.   I can tell you one thing for sure.   Effective traders don’t blame others when things start to go wrong.   You can hang onto your tendency to play the victim, or the martyr… but if you want to achieve in trading, you have to be prepared to take responsibility.   People assign reasons to outcomes, whether based on internal or external factors.   When traders face losses, it's common for them to blame bad luck, poor advice, or other external factors, rather than reflecting on their own personal attributes like arrogance, fear, or greed.   This is a challenging lesson to grasp in your trading journey, but one that holds immense value.   This is called attribution theory. Taking responsibility for your actions is the key to improving your trading skills. Pause and ask yourself - What role did I play in my financial decisions?   After all, you were the one who listened to that source, and decided to act on that trade based on the rumour. Attributing results solely to external circumstances is what is known as having an ‘external locus of control’.   It's a concept coined by psychologist Julian Rotter in 1954. A trader with an external locus of control might say, "I made a profit because the markets are currently favourable."   Instead, strive to develop an "internal locus of control" and take ownership of your actions.   Assume that all trading results are within your realm of responsibility and actively seek ways to improve your own behaviour.   This is the fastest route to enhancing your trading abilities. A trader with an internal locus of control might proudly state, "My equity curve is rising because I am a disciplined trader who faithfully follows my trading plan." Author: Louise Bedford Source: https://www.tradinggame.com.au/
    • SELF IMPROVEMENT.   The whole self-help industry began when Dale Carnegie published How to Win Friends and Influence People in 1936. Then came other classics like Think And Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill, Awaken the Giant Within by Tony Robbins toward the end of the century.   Today, teaching people how to improve themselves is a business. A pure ruthless business where some people sell utter bullshit.   There are broke Instagrammers and YouTubers with literally no solid background teaching men how to be attractive to women, how to begin a start-up, how to become successful — most of these guys speaking nothing more than hollow motivational words and cliche stuff. They waste your time. Some of these people who present themselves as hugely successful also give talks and write books.   There are so many books on financial advice, self-improvement, love, etc and some people actually try to read them. They are a waste of time, mostly.   When you start reading a dozen books on finance you realize that they all say the same stuff.   You are not going to live forever in the learning phase. Don't procrastinate by reading bull-shit or the same good knowledge in 10 books. What we ought to do is choose wisely.   Yes. A good book can change your life, given you do what it asks you to do.   All the books I have named up to now are worthy of reading. Tim Ferriss, Simon Sinek, Robert Greene — these guys are worthy of reading. These guys teach what others don't. Their books are unique and actually, come from relevant and successful people.   When Richard Branson writes a book about entrepreneurship, go read it. Every line in that book is said by one of the greatest entrepreneurs of our time.   When a Chinese millionaire( he claims to be) Youtuber who releases a video titled “Why reading books keeps you broke” and a year later another one “My recommendation of books for grand success” you should be wise to tell him to jump from Victoria Falls.   These self-improvement gurus sell you delusions.   They say they have those little tricks that only they know that if you use, everything in your life will be perfect. Those little tricks. We are just “making of a to-do-list before sleeping” away from becoming the next Bill Gates.   There are no little tricks.   There is no success-mantra.   Self-improvement is a trap for 99% of the people. You can't do that unless you are very, very strong.   If you are looking for easy ways, you will only keep wasting your time forgetting that your time on this planet is limited, as alive humans that is.   Also, I feel that people who claim to read like a book a day or promote it are idiots. You retain nothing. When you do read a good book, you read slow, sometimes a whole paragraph, again and again, dwelling on it, trying to internalize its knowledge. You try to understand. You think. It takes time.   It's better to read a good book 10 times than 1000 stupid ones.   So be choosy. Read from the guys who actually know something, not some wannabe ‘influencers’.   Edit: Think And Grow Rich was written as a result of a project assigned to Napoleon Hill by Andrew Carnegie(the 2nd richest man in recent history). He was asked to study the most successful people on the planet and document which characteristics made them great. He did extensive work in studying hundreds of the most successful people of that time. The result was that little book.   Nowadays some people just study Instagram algorithms and think of themselves as a Dale Carnegie or Anthony Robbins. By Nupur Nishant, Quora Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/    
    • there is no avoiding loses to be honest, its just how the market is. you win some and hopefully more, but u do lose some. 
    • $CSCO Cisco Systems stock, nice top of range breakout, from Stocks to Watch at https://stockconsultant.com/?CSCOSEPN Septerna stock watch for a bottom breakout, good upside price gap
    • $CSCO Cisco Systems stock, nice top of range breakout, from Stocks to Watch at https://stockconsultant.com/?CSCOSEPN Septerna stock watch for a bottom breakout, good upside price gap
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.