Is Hedging the Key to a Robust Expert Advisor?

New comment
 

I would like to start a technical discussion about Expert Advisors for algorithmic trading.

I believe that identifying the market trend is certainly important, regardless of the approach used (price action, technical indicators, neural networks, etc.). However, I have the impression that the real determining factor in an EA's robustness is how it manages losing positions.

More specifically, I am referring to hedging systems designed to manage and recover unfavorable positions, rather than simply closing them with a stop loss.

In your opinion, can a well-designed hedging system have a greater impact on an Expert Advisor's overall performance than the entry logic itself? Or do you believe that the quality of the entry signal remains the most important factor?

From a technical perspective, this is my view:

* If an EA has no statistical edge, or a negative one, a hedging system alone cannot turn it into a profitable long-term strategy.

* On the other hand, if an EA already has a statistical edge in identifying trading opportunities, an effective hedging strategy can reduce drawdown, improve loss recovery, and produce a more stable equity curve.

* The real challenge is designing a hedging system that does not simply postpone losses by increasing market exposure, but instead takes advantage of market movements to manage and close recovery cycles efficiently.

I would be interested in hearing your technical opinions and experiences on this topic.

 
Domenico Perrotta:

I would like to start a technical discussion about Expert Advisors for algorithmic trading.

I believe that identifying the market trend is certainly important, regardless of the approach used (price action, technical indicators, neural networks, etc.). However, I have the impression that the real determining factor in an EA's robustness is how it manages losing positions.

More specifically, I am referring to hedging systems designed to manage and recover unfavorable positions, rather than simply closing them with a stop loss.

In your opinion, can a well-designed hedging system have a greater impact on an Expert Advisor's overall performance than the entry logic itself? Or do you believe that the quality of the entry signal remains the most important factor?

From a technical perspective, this is my view:

* If an EA has no statistical edge, or a negative one, a hedging system alone cannot turn it into a profitable long-term strategy.

* On the other hand, if an EA already has a statistical edge in identifying trading opportunities, an effective hedging strategy can reduce drawdown, improve loss recovery, and produce a more stable equity curve.

* The real challenge is designing a hedging system that does not simply postpone losses by increasing market exposure, but instead takes advantage of market movements to manage and close recovery cycles efficiently.

I would be interested in hearing your technical opinions and experiences on this topic.

If I walked into a proprietary a trading office and told them that my strategy includes buying and selling the same instrument simulataneously, they would laugh/throw me out onto the street. "Direct hedging" is washout. Professional traders engage in cross-instrument and/or cross-market hedging─not direct hedging.

If your strategy includes trading in all "phases" of a market, the proper tactic for a ranging phase is to conditionally deploy fast price reversal entry logic.

In every type of hedging strategy, every profitable trade is reduced by a loss─with the goal of eliminating risk. That's fine for a hedge fund that has a billion dollars, but not so good for the average retail trader who has a small account.

 
If you managed your losses manually, you'd go crazy. But if you told a robot to do it, counting the negative pips of the main trade, it would trigger a hedge with an opposing trade, which would close each time at an overall breakeven point of 0 (profit from the main trade + profit from the hedge trade), or at an overall breakeven point of 10 ($10 profit). Maybe the system could work. What do you think: would the market confirm this reasoning?
 
Domenico Perrotta #:
If you manually hedge your losses, you'd go crazy. But if you tell a robot to do this by counting the negative pips of the main trade, then it would trigger a hedge of an equal and opposite trade, which would close each time at an overall breakeven = 0 (profit from the main trade + profit from the hedge trade), or at an overall breakeven = 10 (profit of $10). Maybe the system could work. What do you say? Just give it a try.?

Been there, done that, prior to the direct hedging ban in my jurisdiction. Although I still have access to direct hedging via "simulated accounts" (out-of-country), I still don't directly hedge because:

  • A hedge of an equal and opposite trade will almost certainly result in a loss. The spread is basically the house's edge. Unlike the case for a single round trade, two trades incur twice the spread. Also, long and short swaps are rarely, if ever, equal. If I hold through the daily close, it's a crapshoot. Of course, this all assumes some type of mean reversion is permanently at play in the markets─which is not the case.
  • As result thereof, the chickens come to roost when price inevitably goes on a directional tear during such a hedge. In this case, a short-term hedge turns into a long-term hold and hope. I refer to that as being "married" to a direct hedge, wherein swaps turn into a bigger crapshoot. At that point, the only hope is to scalp my way out in one direction to cover the losses incurred by eventually closing all trades. Hmm... If that works, why in the heck did I directly hedge in the first place?
 
As I was saying before: a well-designed robot generates this coverage, to then close it at breakeven, also taking into account swaps and spreads, but this would be a transitory situation, because the main operation already has the path marked by a trading system that is believed to have to close it at take profit.
 
Ryan L Johnson #:

Been there, done that, prior to the direct hedging ban in my jurisdiction. Although I still have access to direct hedging via "simulated accounts" (out-of-country), I still don't directly hedge because:

  • A hedge of an equal and opposite trade will almost certainly result in a loss. The spread is basically the house's edge. Unlike the case for a single round trade, two trades incur twice the spread. Also, long and short swaps are rarely, if ever, equal. If I hold through the daily close, it's a crapshoot. Of course, this all assumes some type of mean reversion is permanently at play in the markets─which is not the case.
  • As result thereof, the chickens come to roost when price inevitably goes on a directional tear during such a hedge. In this case, a short-term hedge turns into a long-term hold and hope. I refer to that as being "married" to a direct hedge, wherein swaps turn into a bigger crapshoot. At that point, the only hope is to scalp my way out in one direction to cover the losses incurred by eventually closing all trades. Hmm... If that works, why in the heck did I directly hedge in the first place?
i agree with everything that you have said, 'cept that everything you said also is good reason for hedging: it is unlikely to make profit, especially if "those chickens come home to roost", however the loss will be much less than if the hedge was not used. at least in my experiences. The trick is to choose when to close the hedge and return to trading of the main strategy.
 
Domenico Perrotta #:
As I was saying before: a well-designed robot generates this coverage, to then close it at breakeven, also taking into account swaps and spreads, but this would be a transitory situation, because the main operation already has the path marked by a trading system that is believed to have to close it at take profit.

Do you have such a "well-designed robot" or is that a hypothetical statement?

I only ask because again, I don't see how it is possible to breakeven, let alone profit, from two equal and opposite trades having a net negative (loss) gap between them.

If you mean that the robot waits for each trade to, independently of each other, move into profit and the robot closes each trade at different times, then the robot becomes unhedged. Again I say, why directly hedge in the first place?

New comment