What it takes to have it

  • Welcome to the Darwinex Forums, these forums are member-run and managed by CavaliereVerde. Member-run forum rules may differ from the site guidelines.

FXforfun

Member
85 134
Hi,
I'm not an investor, I tried it but after some months seeing my portfolio investment performance much poorer than my own Darwins I let it go. If I lose, I'll do it by my own merits :)

I've been trading for years. Never successful I admit. But what is the definition of successful? Well, that would be another post, I'm not successful by my own standards though I put my skin on my strategies.
But what does it take for a Darwin to have the key? When you say. That's really good. Not about searching the holy grial but just genuin Good.

I have a scientific mind and translate it on everything I do. That's why I'm a quant trader. I need measures, facts to classify what's good, bad or better. So here, as investors, what do you look at? The D-Score, drawdawns, Return, profit,...?

I read the website of a Darwin provider UYZ. I think that's one of the bests, and looks like a humble guy, which is better yet! I saw something I didn't thought before. It was something like; He's been trading for a living for 7 years, entering now on his 8th. He's not 100% sure yet to be consistent because you'll be able to really measure the trader after his 8 years track.
So, in other words: After this year he'll be able to feel confident enough to know that he has what it takes to trade.

And now, in my quant mind. How do you measure it? Just beeing green? Not good enough beeing green/flat. Having a track record of 8 years? Would be the same as to say that you can't measure it enough because after 8 years is evident if you have it or not. Some kind of statistical significance? Based on what; trades, months, both?

I guess there are as many answers as investors, same as on trading; as many systems as traders. The right answer probably with those who win money, on both sides of the equation - traders & investors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CavaliereVerde

DominionCuentas

Junior member
13 26
Hi,
I'm not an investor, I tried it but after some months seeing my portfolio investment performance much poorer than my own Darwins I let it go. If I lose, I'll do it by my own merits :)

I've been trading for years. Never successful I admit. But what is the definition of successful? Well, that would be another post, I'm not successful by my own standards though I put my skin on my strategies.
But what does it take for a Darwin to have the key? When you say. That's really good. Not about searching the holy grial but just genuin Good.

I have a scientific mind and translate it on everything I do. That's why I'm a quant trader. I need measures, facts to classify what's good, bad or better. So here, as investors, what do you look at? The D-Score, drawdawns, Return, profit,...?

I read the website of a Darwin provider UYZ. I think that's one of the bests, and looks like a humble guy, which is better yet! I saw something I didn't thought before. It was something like; He's been trading for a living for 7 years, entering now on his 8th. He's not 100% sure yet to be consistent because you'll be able to really measure the trader after his 8 years track.
So, in other words: After this year he'll be able to feel confident enough to know that he has what it takes to trade.

And now, in my quant mind. How do you measure it? Just beeing green? Not good enough beeing green/flat. Having a track record of 8 years? Would be the same as to say that you can't measure it enough because after 8 years is evident if you have it or not. Some kind of statistical significance? Based on what; trades, months, both?

I guess there are as many answers as investors, same as on trading; as many systems as traders. The right answer probably with those who win money, on both sides of the equation - traders & investors.
 

CavaliereVerde

Experienced member
1,669 2,169
The numbers tell only part of the story.
Numbers are calculated from a trackrecord.
We dont' know the significance of that trackrecord, it could come from a farm of many accounts.
Performance and discipline are the past, you have to understand if those results are produced by a honest and educated person.
As trader you know what you are doing, generally you don't cheat yourself.
Investing is much more difficult than trading, you don't know the genuinity of what is presented to you.
 

Pure Pip Producer

Established member
500 257
The numbers tell only part of the story.
Numbers are calculated from a trackrecord.
We dont' know the significance of that trackrecord
So, do you agree with me after all? 🤔

"It is not the length of the track-record that matters but the process."

An extrapolation of that would be to say : It is better to have the right mindset knowing how to process information rather than a long track-record that includes disqualifying negative quarters.

I'm glad to hear that you're finally on the right way....

Because those who think in the other way are those who keep going to buy the top and sell the bottom, again and again...



Really, if now, we would ask you :

Do you prefer to have a 10 years track-record with disqualifying negative quarters but not the right process to treat the information to be able to not have disqualifying negative quarters anymore?

Or do you prefer to have the right process to treat the information to be able to never have a disqualifying negative quarter anymore but not a 10 years track-record yet?

I already know... no need to answer 😉
 
Last edited:

Pure Pip Producer

Established member
500 257
The answer is not in the datas of the market. The answer is in our brain.
 

FXforfun

Member
85 134
I should disagree with you guys. It's all about numbers and metrics.
At the end of the day "the process" is validated or not by the numbers.
Of course if they cheat you and give you false numbers you're fucked. But if the raw data is genuine that's all you need. Never mind if before a trade you offer a blood sacrifice to Zeus or you have a robot trading for you.
 

FXforfun

Member
85 134
Thanks for your nice words @CavaliereVerde . Appreciated :)
Do you want me to start a thread about one of them?
My Darwins haven't earned yet the right of the star lights. I mean, if I was a potential investor I wouldn't bet on them.

Of course I strongly believe in my method and results will come, otherwise I'd be a moroon to have my own money put on them. But currently I don't have a solid track record... and once I have it words won't be too necessary ;)
 

CavaliereVerde

Experienced member
1,669 2,169
So I will answer here to your question in the title.
Initially I thought it was a question as investor but it was as trader, so what it takes to have confidence in a strategy or what investors are looking for.
You are a quant so it is just like backtests.
Would you trust a backtest of one year? I wouldn't.
Live results are more significant but we have thousands of darwins or trackrecords, it is like an optimization run, you have to pick a robust parameter set not the luckiest.
The longer the trackrecord the better but I would say at least 2 years.
 
Last edited:

IlIlIlIlI

Established member
686 662
@FXforfun
1624734352276.png

Good luck!
 

FXforfun

Member
85 134
Just for the sake of crunching numbers. What chances would have a Darwin to make us rich? Or to make money for a living? Or just to make money enough to barely continuing trading?...

Well, I decided to make a break on my robots and crazy Forex ideas, and dive into the Darwin Universe to check for myself how is everyone struggling with the markets :)

First, Darwinex sample has 3.105 Darwins. Good enough for my taste. Let's move forward and play with some filters.
Simple exercice: I filtered the Darwins according its longevity - More than 1 year, 2, 3, >5 years.
After that, from those groups I checked their returns since the past 2 years. I would have preferred to measue the return since their origin but I didn't find the way. Anyway, I think the results would be more or less the same.

This is the table with some figures:
Captura.JPG


Could discuss my personal criteria. But I think that if in 2 years you don't get at least 10% return in total, the Darwin is worthless. I suppose that we could consider a Darwin that gives us between 10% to 20% return per year as the Darwin of our wet dreams. And those with more than 20% per year the Masters of the World.

On the table above:
  • Chances to get a Darwin that will provide money enough for a Living: 7% to 10%
  • Chances to get a Darwin that will make us rich and enjoy cocktails on a Caribean beach: 1%

Well, conclusions? I see a couple of obvious things:
i) Trading is fucking hard
ii) Numbers between Darwins with more than 1 year experience are quite similar to those who have a much longer longevity. In fact, after year 3, results are almost the same. So, from here: After 1 year your results should have confidence enough to predict the future, and after 3 years the results are pretty certain. I could be wrong but I see what I see...

On this business where everyone look like owning the definite truth but nobody look like knowing really nothing. Getting some conclusions and cold references I think is comforting.

And yes, I know. Of course there are exceptions and see a Darwin crushing after 3 or more successful years. We all have seen and discussed about some of those Darwins. But at the end of the day, statistically the numbers don't lie.
 
 
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

But it's thanks to our sponsors that access to Trade2Win remains free for all. By viewing our ads you help us pay our bills, so please support the site and disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock