More from Colibri Trader
More from Stockslearnings
4 factors to measure the performance of a trading system:
1 - Accuracy
There is no such thing as 90% Accuracy without compromising on other factors (like profit factor, etc)
Fact - A good trading system will have only 35-60% accuracy without compromising other factors.
(1/n)
2 - Profit Factor (PF)
It is similar to risk-reward. It is derived using the below formula:
Profit Factor = Total Profit by winning trades / Total loss by losing trades
Fact - A trading system above 1.2 PF is good if it scores well with other factors.
(2/n)
3 - Maximum Drawdown
The maximum drawdown also plays a vital role psychologically while picking a trading system.
Fact - Maximum Drawdown in any trading system should not exceed 20%. I suggest picking only the techniques which have less than 10% maximum drawdown.
(3/n)
4 - Maximum Consecutive Losers
We all feel bad even if we lose only Rs.1,000 in a trade. Because it is not only about the money, it is emotionally difficult to accept the failure.
Fact - A good trading system will have less than 15 consecutive losing trades.
(4/n)
TRADE LIKE CRAZY
10 Profitable Intraday Trading Systems, which are backtested against 10-years of Banknifty Historical Data!
(n/n)
https://t.co/BuUie17Ish
1 - Accuracy
There is no such thing as 90% Accuracy without compromising on other factors (like profit factor, etc)
Fact - A good trading system will have only 35-60% accuracy without compromising other factors.
(1/n)
2 - Profit Factor (PF)
It is similar to risk-reward. It is derived using the below formula:
Profit Factor = Total Profit by winning trades / Total loss by losing trades
Fact - A trading system above 1.2 PF is good if it scores well with other factors.
(2/n)
3 - Maximum Drawdown
The maximum drawdown also plays a vital role psychologically while picking a trading system.
Fact - Maximum Drawdown in any trading system should not exceed 20%. I suggest picking only the techniques which have less than 10% maximum drawdown.
(3/n)
4 - Maximum Consecutive Losers
We all feel bad even if we lose only Rs.1,000 in a trade. Because it is not only about the money, it is emotionally difficult to accept the failure.
Fact - A good trading system will have less than 15 consecutive losing trades.
(4/n)
TRADE LIKE CRAZY
10 Profitable Intraday Trading Systems, which are backtested against 10-years of Banknifty Historical Data!
(n/n)
https://t.co/BuUie17Ish

You May Also Like
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.