Registration for the Real Accounts (Cents) Championship July 2017 . - page 34
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Oleg, if you want to offer something of substance, then offer it, it will be considered later. But in such a manner " Who is this 'efficient manager'?Please don't write that, you are already deliberately insulting the person. Let's live in peace, I repeat, the whole picture is welcome at the technical level, without resorting to personalities, recalling the past and so on.
Thank you for understanding.
Just surprised at the thoughtless and irresponsible attitude.
Okay... let's move on...
========================================
If on the merits, for a start, before sculpting formulas, it is necessary to understand the question of what the purpose of the contest is.
I, for example, believe that the purpose of this contest is to maximise performance, measured by the value of the final balance. Everyone agrees with this goal.
And if there's more than one objective, you need to define it clearly and unambiguously. You want to introduce a second category, you introduce it and call it "efficiency". But let's ask ourselves the question, "Is the account with the maximum balance ranked first less efficient than all the others?" Of course, NO. Thus, it is a mistake to call the second nomination "efficiency".
I therefore ask the question: What is the purpose of the second nomination? i.e. What should it reveal?
I am just surprised by thoughtless and irresponsible attitude.
Well... let's move on...
========================================
First of all, before modelling formulas, you should clearly understand what the aim of this competition is.
I, for example, believe that the purpose of this contest is to maximise performance, measured by the value of the final balance. Everyone agrees with this goal.
And if there is more than one objective, you have to define it clearly and unambiguously. You want to introduce a second nomination, you introduce it and call it "efficiency". But let's ask ourselves the question, "Is the account with the maximum balance that came in first place less efficient than all the others?" Of course, NO. Thus, it is a mistake to call the second nomination "efficiency".
I therefore ask the question: What is the purpose of the second nomination? i.e. what should it reveal?
It's simple, the second nomination is for compliance with risks, if you don't like the word efficiency, you can suggest another one, we will consider
Anyone can count any way they want here, it's their own business . The second nomination does not interfere with the first.
The purpose of the second nomination - to show how you can trade without overestimating the risks, with maximum profit at the same time.
It's simple, the second nomination is for risk compliance, if you don't like the word efficiency, you can suggest another one, we'll consider it
Anybody can count here, it's up to him or her. The second nomination does not interfere with the first one.
The purpose of the second nomination - to show how you can trade without overestimating the risks, with maximum profit at the same time
What does "like" have to do with it? \ "don't like"...
The concept of "efficiency" has a strictly defined meaning.
Effectiveness(lat. efficientia) is the ratio between the achieved results and the used resources (ISO 9000:2015).
And introducing any other meaning does not lead to a good cause, but only makes a mess of heads.
What does "like" have to do with it? \ "don't like"...
Efficiency has a strictly defined meaning.
And introducing any other meanings does not lead to a good cause, but only makes a mess of things.
What should we call the second nomination so that it doesn't mess up our heads?
Come on, let's see.
What does "like" have to do with it? \ "don't like"...
Efficiency has a strictly defined meaning.
And the introduction of any other meanings does not lead to a good cause, but only makes a mess of things.
Right, I suggested this, subtract the drawdown from the income: for example, one has traded for 100 $ with a drawdown of 30% - the total of 100 - 100 * 0.3 = $ 70 honestly earned in the second nomination. The second participant traded 80 $ with 10% drawdown - total 80 - 80 * 0.1 = 72 $ honestly earned. Well it's all for the second nomination offered "Best Risk Management" .
And the first nomination - "Absolute" - is the value of AccountBalance.
And there must be three prizes in each category. Equal prizes for money - then the weight of the winners will be the same in both categories. Well for example there is prize fund 200$ - so for each category prize fund will be 100$, then this 100$ inside each category is divided between 3 prize winners - again calculate lag of each prize winner from each other and divide prize fund proportionally inside each category based on this:
Assume for the first or "Absolute" nomination:
1 winner - AccountBalance $200
2 prizewinner - AccountBalance 180$
3rd prize winner - AccountBalance $150.
Total proportions
1 winner 200/(200+180+150) = 38%
2 prizewinner 180/(200+180+150) = 34%
3 prizewinner 150/(200+180+150) = 28%.
Correspondingly, the cash prize is $38, $34, $28.
Cash prize is not the point, although it should ideally be, the essence of participation - to take 1st place and get a commemorative prize, well, the second, third place incentive. And give all the diplomas such as 1, 2, 3 place in the contest in a nomination. For a long memory will be.
Well, and by analogy for the second nomination "Best Risk Management. In short, the more winners and prize-winners the higher the sporting interest of participants. Three prizes for each category is a classic.
And what about Sharpe who cares? So some will go down if they risk it to win. The contest is 4 weeks long! - You could get sucked in and be back in the running. And if you took a risk, what's wrong with winning? Risk is a noble thing, especially for the first nomination.
It's up to you if you want Sharpe for the second nomination, let Sharp be Sharpe - that's the contest administration.
The second nomination is for risk taking. If you do not like the word efficiency, you may suggest another.
Anybody can count here, it's up to him or her. The second nomination does not interfere with the first one.
The purpose of the second nomination - to show how you can trade without overestimating the risks, with maximum profit at the same time.
What should we call the second nomination so that there would not be a mess in our heads?
Come on, let's check it out.
Before I suggest something for consideration, I would like to ask a couple of clarifying questions.
With the term"profit" is clear.
It is not so clear with the phrase"with maximum profit at that", because this phrase implicitly implies a functional dependence ("at that") on"risk".
The term "risk" is unclear, and we need to clarify what exactly is meant by the term, as there are a dozen interpretations of it.
Again with"without overestimation of risk" it is not clear and we need to introduce some base value or range of values, relative to which we can talk about "overestimation".
Let us be clear about this first. So that we can link it all into a single system. Instead of lumping it all together.
Mathematics is like a millstone, it grinds what is put under it, and just as pouring quinoa into it won't produce wheat flour, so writing whole pages with formulas won't produce truth from false assumptions.
- Huxley.
There will be two nominations, full stop.
Before I suggest anything for consideration, I will ask a couple of clarifying questions.
The term"profit" is clear.
The phrase"with maximum profit at that" is no longer so clear, as the phrase implicitly implies a functional dependence ("at that") on"risk".
The term "risk" is unclear, and we need to clarify what exactly is meant by it, as there are dozens of interpretations of the term.
Again with"without overestimation of risk" it is not clear and we need to introduce some base value or range of values, relative to which we can talk about "overestimation".
Let's be clear about this first. So that we can link it all into a single system. Instead of lumping it all together.
Oleg, you understand :) I'm not going to compete with you in eloquence, as you understand the term))). Without exaggerating the risks - it means a drawdown of no more than 30%, as in the signal service (it was written down in the rules), and the maximum profit that participants of the championship can make, up to this drawdown. There is no heap there :)
Oleg you understand :) I'm not going to compete with you in eloquence, as you understand the term))) Without exaggerating the risks - it means a drawdown of no more than 30%, as in the signal service (it was written down in the rules), and the maximum profit that participants of the championship can make, up to this drawdown. There isn't any pile there :)
Suit yourself ...
Suit yourself...
So what do you suggest for the second nomination? It's pretty clear, how much slack, how much what ...........