Wait…so you consider a draw down just how much a trader lost from their starting capital? So he’s got 281,000 of equity right now. If he lost $181,000 would you say his DD is still 4% because he would be at his starting capital?
2 Likes
Than 4%, if go from 1000 to 960 and then to 2000.
Great, that was the right answer, 4% drawdown.
Now what if I told you that at some point I was up $3,000,000 (before exiting the casino with $2,000), would you still say I had a 4% drawdown?
So, did i just double my money or did I lose $298,000?
See the problem here…?
Nope. I see were you going, I’ve been there and on my opinion this logic is crooked. 
1 Like
So basically you are saying that you cannot answer this simple question.
Actually I answered your question, you just need to read the tread more accurately. Here was your question -
This was my answer -
Now, my turn. Answer on my question -
No you didn’t answer the question: in this casino example, is it still a 4% drawdown ($40 loss from a $1000 capital) or a 99% drawdown and change (we went from $3,000,000 to $2,000)?
Did we double our money or did we experience a 99% drawdown and change?
Did we earn $1000 or did we lose $2,998,000?
See, that’s where the whole trouble is…
When you say casino I think you mean “play monopoly” because all this conversation is in regards to Monopoly money. Zero real trades!
1 Like
Good question.
The answer is no: if the trader risks more than a certain optimal percentage on each trade, then the profits decrease and the drawdown increases .
In fact, if the percentage of money allocated to each trade exceeds a certain limit, the risk of ruin becomes certain, no matter how good the trading system is.
These are mathematical facts, real money or demo money it does not matter.
Yet it does matter. A person cannot trade this strategy (martingaling from zero to 25 contracts in a matter of minutes) in real life.
And, just like your views on leverage and risk, your views on draw downs are completely misguided. It seems you are confusing a total profit with a draw down.
2 Likes
I think you just like to argue. 
2 Likes
Are you kidding me??
Avi is trading S&P500 mini contracts, these are the most liquid futures contracts on earth.
25 contracts or 2500 contracts that’s peanuts for these markets.
Come on.
Anyway good night all.
It’s not the liquidity, it’s your broker that will not allow you to trade with such leverage. Look at the margin requirements you need from Interactive Brokers and multiply that by the 30 contracts that this strategy is martingaling with 18% draw downs within minutes. It’s not real world trading.
Anyway, I’ve learned not to get into a debate with you. Good night to you too.
Oh, I found this strategy. Is this the one you started this this month?
I have no problem to repeat:
No, it is not 4% drawdown. It is (3,000,000 - 960) / 3,000,000 * 100% = 99.97% drawdown and 40$ loss. First and second events are independent and can be observed at the same time.
You doubled money (1000 to 2000), but at the same time you experienced 99.97% drawdown. First and second events are independent and can be observed at the same time.
You earned 1000$ per one casino night and didn’t lose 2,998,000$ in that night.
Sure, I see it. Somehow you are thinking that drawdown is equal to loss. But it is not, if you didn’t stop trading and was lucky enough to get back.
1 Like
It’s almost as bad as the traders who say “it’s only a loss if you sell”
2 Likes
Now, lets expand that casino night case further. You take your friend to casino. He never played before and while you are growing your account from 1,000 to 3,000,000 watching on you in excitement. You got to 3,000,000 and he decided that you are super-gambler and he needs to follow your approach. We know the end - you earned 1,000. He lost 2,998,000.
1 Like
This is how I look for strategies that martingale. Every time the equity curve drops a little, the leverage increases dramatically.
1 Like
We read all the comments, and the things are it doesn’t matter what or how you will do, people will always criticize you with whatever you do. I had a client said I don’t risk too much, go figure…
But anyway, @LiveForexSignals thank you for the comments and understanding those results!
Regarding anyone else, the reason that I could trade more than four contracts because the volume of the new contract was too low yet, that is why we were limited, not because of the capital.
Second I trade what I can to trade in IB. I need to have more than 10,000 for the NQ contract in margin when in TERRANOVA, you need just 500$ in margin…
We will not try to “defend” ourselves for the trading but just keep trading, and our goal is to have even better performance then we have today. We think that actions worth more than words. That’s why I hope you will follow the strategy and will like our work ( or now ); the problem is that you are not paying our bills 
Have a great week and a happy new year
1 Like
Let’s say a trader starts 2 systems and sets them on private initially. For the 1st trade he buys a super large position of NQ futures and in the 2nd one he sells a super large position of NQ. The trader waits until there is a big move in the NQ (it could be after a few days or more) and then closes his positions. One of the systems will have a huge gain and the other a huge loss.
The system that has the huge gain is made public. The gain from the 1st trade is so big (because of the super large position) that none of the following drawdowns will bring the account below the initial capital. Now this isn’t something that is difficult to do!
It doesn’t even have to be one trader intentionally trying to do this. There are multiple traders starting multiple systems and trying different trades. Obviously some of the them will get lucky for the first few months.
2 Likes
