What it takes to have it

[CavaliereVerde]

if you achieve an engine that may increase your wealth by more than 10% a year. You have it. It's feasible. Well, 7-10% chances to get it say so.

If "Get Rich" 20%+ is a chimera also 10% could be luck/chimera.
It is easier(more likely) to acheive 10% than 20% but also this class of traders is rotating.
Every amount of positive performance could be due to luck.
Also hedge funds are rotating, winners turn to losers and desappear from the rankings on websites.

 

[Muiris]

In order to start a discussion here we should define first what do you consider necessary to provide a living. From my point of view, if you achieve an engine that may increase your wealth by more than 10% a year. You have it. It's feasible. Well, 7-10% chances to get it say so.
Of course if you don't have any capital. You may have the engine but not even a 50% a year could provide you a living. And 50% a year is not feasible.
As I said on my post it's my personal criteria and each of us will have a different one and probably none of us will match. However most estraordinary hedge funds wordwide barely can get a 20% a year. And none of them are on Darwinex, aren't they?

My exercice was made from a trader perspective instead of an investor perspective:
As an investor I would like to be able to filter those Darwins with a real hedge.
As a trader I want to know if my Darwin has a real hedge.
Subtle difference here, but as trader I can start anticipating behavior from a year of results to Project on the next 5 years.

As an investor I wouldn't bet on the first 25 Darwins on the Get Rich level because those are just a number on a statistic. Probably those 25 will be replaced by another ones on the next year and they are going to rotate year by year.
Only thing I can extract from the table I made is that 1% is on the Get Rich Level. And this 1% probably is just noise. So, in my opinion the Get Rich Level is just a chimera.

There has been about 10,000 darwins created since inception. i think the success rate of 10% average a year lies more closely at 1 in 2000 chance .

if there was a 10% chance of getting a 10% return machine every year, there would be a hell of a lot more profitable darwins here.

it is more likely that you have a 10% chance of getting a darwin returning 10% ONE YEAR ONLY

 

[FXforfun]

There has been about 10,000 darwins created since inception

Mixing numbers here. I'm just looking at active Darwins older than 1 year. And numbers are quite uniform once your Darwin gets older than 1 year. By the way you didn't notice that >2 years have bigger %'s, and that's logical too
But it's Ok, put it the way you want. Cold numbers, extract your conclusions. If there's anything to conclude

 

[CavaliereVerde]

From my point of view, if you achieve an engine that may increase your wealth by more than 10% a year. You have it. It's feasible.

If you want to say that a system that generates 10% per year is likely to be more robust than one that generates 20% because 10% is closer to hedge funds I can agree, it can be.
The other point is that such systems are much more rare than 7-10% of total systems.
Active darwins is already a number flawed by survivorship bias.
As we can see from my monitoring ~30 darwins are created every week but despite it the numbers of active darwins is pretty stable, this means that ~30 darwins per week are closed or have gone inactive.
This is more or less the same since 2018, so we have ~5000 abandoned darwins in 3 years.

 

[Muiris]

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...

instinct alone, should tell you , you are wrong. no need to wait

 

[FXforfun]

instinct alone, should tell you , you are wrong. no need to wait

Can't argue against that. No data or facts needed. Instinct!! How I didn't realize before!

 

[Muiris]

Can't argue against that. No data or facts needed. Instinct!! How I didn't realize before!

This isn't the "OWN" you think it is.

 

[IlIlIlIlI]

The problem always is that you are now looking only at the survivors of the last period(s).

If Darwinex would provide you with the data so that you clould setup your selection to the criteria a year ago you will see who disapperead during that period because it didn't survive it.

The survivors also have to compensate the losses of the others and the fees before they can make profit in your portfolio.
That's the challenge - and currently we can only test forward.

 

[FXforfun]

Still mulling over the issue and assuming my previous statements, based on the table filtered by the seniority of the Darwin and its returns, were Ok. Let's give it one more thought and take a measure. The purpose is to try to predict the quality of a Darwin from a simple measue, just reading a value. That's a measure, right?.

What is the only measure we can extract from Darwinex?, aside from the atributes which almost by definition only give us a piece of information and are not intended to bring us the full picture. So, what is the only measure we've left from Darwinex? Yes D-Score. I'm not a fan of the D-Score, but it isn't a bad measure either, could be as good as any other.

So, back to the matter. The question is if we could classify a Darwin just with the result of its D-Score (again, a measure as any other). Let's turn the Excel machine on and this is what I've found:

I think it's not bold to conclude just what the numbers say: A Darwin under D-Score of 66 - 67 is not worthy. Doesn't matter how much experience it has, the results are quite stable and uniform through the years.

I'll try to ellaborate a bit better on my little blog