Your Questions About Successful Trading Strategy

Steven asks…

Can someone translate this to Dutch?

If you can… I will really appreciate it. We will post your name on our board if you like it. This is the stuff to translate:

Our Mission at the PharmacoFood Cluster is to translate basic science to innovative health products and incorporate non-toxic herbal remedies into different foods. PharmacoFood’s strategy is to bring together talented people highly committed and capable of innovation required for the betterment of daily living, especially improve quality of daily food by introduction scientifically approved quality components enhancing health in aging societies. With State-Of-The-Art Chemo- and bioinformatics, and molecular biology tools our research team has screened and developed synergic blends of bioactive ingredients from non-toxic herbal extract, which can either prevent or treat the mentioned degenerative diseases. By propagating different functional herbal additives, via daily food products, PharmacoFood can better address new health challenges on the functional food and other health preservation markets. The discovery platform integrates high-throughput bioassays, either in vitro or in vivo to identify and validate molecular targets of specific diseases. The best non-toxic herbal agents effective on in vitro target then is tried in animals genetically modified to produce the pertinent protein validated as target in the particular disease. Promising agents, which effectively disintegrate causative mediator(s) of degenerative diseases are selected for accelerated human clinical trials and synergic blends are formulated in essence formula as functional food supplements available for the market.
Fruits of Our Labor
Strategic food products are ideal target vehicles to carry innovative functional food essences to the market. According to a market research conducted worldwide such goal is currently unmet with any comparable products. Herbal extracts with outstanding bioactivity and target specificity have been formulated into innovative food supplements, which are now available in either powder or olive oil dissolved essence formats.
The Foundation of the PharmacoFood Life Sciences & Functional Food Innovation Cluster in 2007 greatly fosters the marketing of the clinically validated, health preserving functional food essences.The Cluster (annual sale revenue ~ 1 billion €) incorporates the most successful food industrial/agricultural and biotech companies of the South-Plain region (Acheuron Hungary, Diabet Trade, Floratom, Fornetti, Hungerit, PICK, Pharmacoidea, SOLE-MiZo etc…) aiming to produce functional food products with state-of-the-art scientific approaches, that can satisfy the health-conscious demands of consumers worldwide.
For more information please contact us.
Turning the Carpathian basin into the food valley of Europe.

John answers:

Onze missie bij het PharmacoFood cluster is het omzetten van simpele wetenschap tot innovatieve gezondheidsproducten en het belichamen van niet-giftige geneeskrachtige kruiden in verscheidene voedselproducten. PharmacoFood’s strategie houdt het samenbrengen van getalenteerde individuen in, die ook nog eens zeer toegewijd zijn en die in staat zijn tot benodigde innovatie voor het verbeteren van het dagelijks leven, maar vooral ook voor het verbeteren van de kwaliteit van dagelijks geconsumeerd voedsel, door middel van het introduceren van wetenschappelijk goedgekeurde kwaliteitscomponenten in verouderende gemeenschappen.

Door middel van State-Of-The-Art chemo- and bioinformatica, en ”molecular biology” gereedschappen heeft ons research team synergische blends van bioactieve ingredienten uit een niet-giftig kruidenextract gescreend en ontwikkeld, wat of de voorheen genoemde degeneratieve ziekten kan voorkomen, of kan bestrijden.

Here’s the first part, I’m not in the mood for the rest.

Nancy asks…

What’s the best way to manage risk capitol in the Foreign Exchange market?

A little more detail.

I’ve traded – unsuccessfully – in the stock market for a strong while. After nearly two years of trading, I was down about 17% over the period (a margin account with 25 to 50 per cent leverage, by SEC regulations). There were a couple of really good times, but there were more times were I couldn’t help pulling my short, irregular hair out.

I decided that the commodities markets were a little too, well, newsy for me and I backed off for about 3 months. Now, I’ve delegated the remaining capitol to the currency exchange markets for all of the obvious reasons. I find that these markets play to the news that everyone hears. Japan’s earthquakes, the U.S. QE2 announcement, Portugal’s undergoing: These things we here on the radio. And the market moves quickly; much faster than any security, and worse still with, say, 50 to 1 leverage.

Now, I’ve read books. Following Market Wizards is probably by far the easiest way to stand on the shoulders of giants. In specifically this example, there are a couple of interviews where Ph.D level mathematicians, scholars, ex-military and the most successful of traders alike disagree on the subject of how much risk is too much risk.

A no-tolerance hundred-millionaire says to stuff emotion and make everything a 1% bet, setting stops at 1%, trailing stops at 1%, and taking at 1%.

A mathematician says that, based on linear curve, the best bet is a 2% risk, because, after such risk, reward becomes the underweight.

Most MT4 experts with risk built into them seem to prefer 2.5%.

My question is: If you’re a trader that follows these people and methods, and simply the best risk strategy must be betting between 0.5% and 3%, then of what are you betting a percent? Each point? Account equity? Balance? Margin?

John answers:

The golden rule is that you mustn’t risk in a single operation more than a given percentage of your total account balance (or equity). The figure you gave are in line with what the most successful traders use.
This doesn’t mean that you must only use 0.5-3% of your account balance as a margin for a position, but only that what you lose in case of stop loss on a position mustn’t exceed 0.5-3% of your account balance (subtle difference).

George asks…

mccain’s wager, the decisive vote?

If your going to choose between mccain and obama, it makes sense to vote for mccain. Yes, Obama has everything going for him this election and he will most probably win. He is a popular choice because he is on the right side of the war and on health care. However, Obama, if you look at the two choices purely quantitatively, is a riskier choice. A lot riskier with a lot greater downside if we elect him this time around as compared to some time in the future. This is independent of whether you are republican or a democrat. No, I am not only referring to his lack of experience but a host of other issues I am about to get into. Lets say we don’t know who’s got the best strategy as far as the war is concerned, it could be mccain, could be obama. Who knows, maybe if we do withdraw from iraq, all hell will break loose, iran will start influencing iraq and the rest of the middle east, and push it into a nuclear arms race through is increased influence on top of there being a civil war in iraq that will make america look even worse on the world stage.

lets just say we don’t know, everybody independent of their ideology, can agree that surprises are always around the corner….

So, lets start with the war. Quantitatively, it has been determined that we have already spent the bulk of the main money for the war. That is, we have to spend less as time goes by, in order to maintain our ‘occupation’ of Iraq. In fact, it would probably be more costly, to move all the resources OUT of Iraq, not to mention the possibility of us having to come back if something were to go wrong. Therefore, we have to assume these are sunk costs…and that we will not get our money back. Anyway, we have already spent the main mass of money for the war. It will most probably cost us a 10th of what we have already spent to remain for another 4 years. Given that things have stabalized, and assuming no flareup in violence, we can reasonably expect the same for the number of lives lost.

Given we don’t know the outcome of pulling out or staying in. We can reasonably expect that if we stay, we will be more certain of our decision in 4 years than right now. If we pull out now, we get to see the deck of cards, but we havn’t seen the dealers cards and therefore we are looking at blind luck.

However, the marginal cost to wait 4 years, is only a 10th of what we’ve already paid, and we get to see the dealers cards as well as some more of ours…time tells everything. However, if we get out now, we may face paying 5 times what we’ve already paid, but we also have the chance of getting out scott free. Not knowing for certain which one is the best, the rational choice is to stay in Iraq for a couple more years. If it turns out to be a complete disaster and all hell breaks loose, the decision will be made for us. If we succeed, we get to reap the rewards. Either way, the decision is more foul proof if we wait a couple more years. Given that all occupations have only become successful after 10 years, it behooves us to wait just on that principle. The upside is that we gain an ally in the middle east which will curb iran’s influence and we can use it as a proxy to maintain stability such as Saudi Arabia, the downside is the same downside as if we leave today, all hell breaks loose, but we would have waited 4 years and paid a 10th of what we’ve already paid to make sure we see the outcome. If we go with obama’s approach, the upside is we get out scott free, the downside is there is a civil war and we have to spend 5 times more coming back in, or not coming back in, and looking worse on the world stage.

So it’s a trade off. But between both strategies, staying in makes it easier for us to decide 4 years from now. Given that mccain will most probably only run once, if we choose him, we can see our experiment through and bet for a higher return and a lesser downside, and if he is wrong, we simply vote for obama or Clinton next time around and make the right decision that will be known to us in 4 years time. If we choose obama now and he is wrong, we will have probably a greater downside, and we will never know if mccain was right, and mccain will not run the next time around.

If maliqui absolves us of responsibility, as the Iranians have coldly calculated, and tells us to get out, we don’t look bad if we get out and there is a civil war, but we risk iran getting more influence in the middle east and challenging our interests in this area, which is argueably a big downside.

On health care. Given that we accept the premise of the above argument, mccain’s extra cost of the war will probably be obama’s health care cost times 6. Say it costs us 10 billion a month to remain in Iraq for the next 4 years, that means that his health care program will probably cost 3 trillion dollars according to conservative estimates. Yes, its true that this is a public work, and is more beneficial to our nation. But the war is also beneficial to our nation, for i
it determines our standing in the world. If we walk out and fail we will look like quitters and failures, and this will be expressed in how countries react to us in the future, determining our influence.
But lets just say heatlh care is more beneficial than paying for a failed war. Lets accept this premise. But we don’t know which health care program is better, mccain’s or obama’s. Argurably, Obama’s could put America greater in debt, and it could be a complete failure. Mccain’s is more conservative, but it could also be a failure. But if it’s a failure, it will have a lesser downside than obama’s, and ocne we know its a failure, we can try the socialist system of universal health care the next time around. Mccain has acquired Mitt Romney’s idea of charging people a fee, everybody, for the service of health care, no one gets a free ride. This, in theory, would allow costs to be handled instead of free loaders invading the operating room and raising costs for everybody else which then
becomes unattainable. By enforcing someone to CHOOSE a service, they are in essence putting down costs. If this doesn’t work, we will know for sure that we need to try universal health care, its our last card and we see clearly what to do next time. Now, we are at an uncertainty. If it does work, we don’t have to spend 3 trillion dollars to spend on a failed program. If it doesn’t, we simply try it the next time around. We start small, we don’t spend on space colonization before putting a satellite in space….we go in steps, first, mccain’s scheme, then if that doesn’t work, which is much more conservative and doesn’t require anywhere near the taxpayer money obama’s program will ask for, then we switch to universal health care.
On Obama’s experience:
Obama could turn out to be to north America what Chavez turned out to be to Venezuela, a complete socialist with radical ideas for social transformation. Who knows, there are always surprises. On the other hand, he could turn out to be an enlightened leader that transforms things for the better. But how much change do we really want? If you think we have it bad, go look at some other countries. Change is not always good. He could change TOO MUCH, and then we would have an extreme budget deficit and a completely different economic system. We could go from capitalist, to partly socialist. And the attraction of America, its value, would go down. What makes America different to investors than socialist sweeden or Europe? It’s the tax regulation relative to other countries and the liquidity of assets. If you change this, and start making things more socialist, the appeal of America disappears, and we simply become another Europe. The thing is, we don’t know. If we wait 4 years time, we can
start looking at his record more closely. Basically, there is always time to try Obama, but only one time to try Mccain. Given both, obama has a greater downside and not that much of a reward for the near future. McCain has a greater upside relatively for the short term, and we can see results. If McCain doesn’t work, then we will know FOR CERTAIN that the republican brand does not have the right answers to social problems, and we can quickly switch to a democrat mindset.

So that’s the wager.
furthermore, it will cost us more to invest in obama’s single universal health care program, than both mccain’s occupation of iraq for 4 more years plus mccain’s health care system. If mccain turns out to be right, we get to use a less expensive health care system and an ally in the middle east for a fraction of the cost of obama’s program. If he is wrong on both , we simply lose a 10th of what we’ve already spent on the war,400 billion, and 300 billion for the estimate of the health care cost. If mccain is wrong, thenthere is a good chance that obama is right, and his 3 trillion dollar program will work. However, if obama is wrong, we lose 3 trilllion on the universial health care, and whatever more billions on the iraq war if something were to go terribly wrong.
therefore, if obama is right, we pay about 4 trillion to get it all accomplished, if he is wrong on one or both, we lose >4 trillion( iraq war+health care system) or2trillion (iraq war, having to go back in), 3 trillion, (only health care was wrong) in the process. If mccain is right, we only pay 700 billion to get it accomplished, if he is wrong on both or on one, we only lose 300 -400 billion (health care or war) to 700 billion (health care +war)
therefore, if obama is right, we pay about 4 trillion to get it all accomplished, if he is wrong on one or both, we lose >4 trillion( iraq war+health care system) or2trillion (iraq war, having to go back in), 3 trillion, (only health care was wrong) in the process. If mccain is right, we only pay 700 billion to get it accomplished, if he is wrong on both or on one, we only lose 300 -400 billion (health care or war) to 700 billion (health care +war)
therefore, if obama is right, we pay about 4 trillion to get it all accomplished, if he is wrong on one or both, we lose >4 trillion( iraq war+health care system) or2trillion (iraq war, having to go back in), 3 trillion, (only health care was wrong) in the process. If mccain is right, we only pay 700 billion to get it accomplished, if he is wrong on both or on one, we only lose 300 -400 billion (health care or war) to 700 billion (health care +war)
furthermore, if we elect mccain,and he is wrong, then it becomes more likely obamais right, and we would have paid the minimum cost for this sure knowledge or only option making our decision easier the next time around.
peppersh, we have to balance the lesser of two evils. If we leave now it could potentially be worse. and the economy will notgo into recession because we stayed in iraq for 4 more years. That would be the mortgage industry, and high prices of comodities + inflationl, it had nothing to do with the war. Besides, I think the economy is going to turn around now. I just hope they put someslight regulation on fannie and freddie, but not too much, turning it into an over-regulated law such as sarbanes oxley
you don’t want to over-regulate….I would just make a law that says no mortgage broker gets paid until the money starts coming in…..no over-regulation or nuisance, thats what usually happens in these cycles, they go to extremes, we should be wary of nto creating another sarbanes oxly

John answers:

You make a good case for war when so many want an end of war.But you forgot one thing.Our economy will not support 4 more years of war unless we get attacked then we would have no choice.In that case it will not matter who is President,there won’t be no saving this country it will be in recession and most likely bankrupt.Such a blow would take years maybe a couple of decades to recover from.I am not a gambler and I think we need policy now to move us forward not just stand still,much is bright in the future and while we ponder on war the rest of the world is moving forward.Nothing new or innovative has happened in years originated from our own science or technology we are falling behind,and that needs to change for the children of tomorrow,but it needs to start today.Not everyone can have their dream but everyone should have the opportunity of it.It begins with education,not war,occupations or military interventions that do nothing for helping this country.In other words if the gain is not visible then it is all for nought.Just a thought.

Sandy asks…

please help me with these?

1.
The idea behind U.S. antitrust laws is to
1. Preserve market competition.
2. Protect current competitors.
3. Protect consumer interests.
4. Protect producer interests.
5. Both A and C.
2.
What are the advantages of auctioning off new rights?
1. The government can use the proceeds to fund worthwhile projects.
2. The winning bidders are likely to be the most efficient users.
3. The winning bidders can easily flip the rights for instant profits.
4. All of the above.
5. Both A and B.
3.
The original government intention of limiting taxi licenses was to
1. Make cab rides too expensive to force passengers into using mass transit systems.
2. Guarantee reasonable earnings to taxi operators in exchange for government regulation on safety and quality.
3. Create windfall profit for taxi operators.
4. Inflate license and fare prices.
4.
Milk in the U.S. is unnecessarily expensive because
1. government-supported price discourages vertical integration of the milk industry.
2. there is an excess demand for milk.
3. milk prices are subject to price control.
4. milk farmers do not produce enough milk.
5.
In what ways is occupational licensing similar to single pricing?
1. It excludes all those who cannot meet that minimum skill or price level.
2. It confers too much benefit to those who have no difficulty in meeting the minimum skill or price level.
3. There is no similarity between the two.
4. Both A and B.
6.
Collusion among producers to raise price and restrict output is likely to be successful if
1. The number of producers is small.
2. The product is homogeneous.
3. There is no anti-trust law against it.
4. All of the above.
5. Both A and C.
7.
Attempts to reduce excess capacity through mergers violate (may violate) U.S. antitrust laws if
1. there is no increase in concentration.
2. they are likely to result in higher prices.
3. the takeover attempts are hostile.
4. The Justice Department is ideologically sympathetic.
8.
Government regulation
1. does not confer any legal immunity to the regulated industries.
2. is never needed in a free market.
3. is generally welcome by industries.
4. may benefit larger firms who are better able to shoulder the burden of regulation.
9.
Price-fixing
1. is a form of capacity reduction.
2. is not against the U.S. antitrust law.
3. is a survival strategy for mature industries producing homogeneous products with large scale-economy and excess capacity.
4. increases consumer surplus.
10.
Trade protection
1. Is likely to be temporary.
2. Is consistent with the principle of comparative advantage.
3. Has made domestic industries stronger.
4. Benefits the few at the expense of the many.

John answers:

1 = 5
2 = 5
3 = 4
4 = 4
5 = WTF ?
6 = 4
7 = 2
8 = 1 or 4 ( Haliburton – Brown&Root no bid Iraq War Contracts support 1.
9 = 1
10= WTF ?
7 =

Chris asks…

Nyaa! Rate my Creator deck 2.0, Onegai!!?

Hiyo Everyone! Me again, with another deck. This one is kinda special for me, cause it embodies the increase in my personal skills as a duelist. This is my ‘Creator’ deck. Or rather, my ‘Creator’ deck 2.0. My original creator deck was my first truly successful deck, and taught me how to be a polished, professional duelist, and showed other players that I was worthy of being respected, and sometimes feared. I regret the fact that over time, my original creator deck followed the inevitable flow of dueling, and was respectfully canalized for other decks, and crucial trades. But now I’m here to make omens. Oddly enough, the new grand dragon structure deck helped to breath new life into the creator. Especially with the new card ’trade-in’. without further adieu, ’end of creation 2.0’!

Monsters~ 21
3 The Creator
3 Kaiser sea horse
2 Guardian Angel Joan
2 Herald of Creation
2 The Creator Incarnate
2 Exiled Force
1 Treeborn Frog
1 Morphing Jar
1 Snipe Hunter
1 Dark Magician of Chaos
1 Ancient Gear Gadgitron Dragon
1 Sacred Phoenix of Nephtys
1 Gilford the lightning

Spells~19
3 Trade-In
3 soul exchange
3 monster gate
2 foolish burial
1 reasoning
2 mausoleum of the emperor
1 brain control
1 MST
1 card destruction
1 heavy storm
1 premature burial

Traps~3
1 mirror force
1 call of the haunted
1 torrential tribute

Okay~ now for a breakdown in strategy. Firstly, most of you decent duelists have probably noticed that this deck contains an insanely high amount of 2-tribute monsters. And that I don’t run cyber dragons. Both of those facts are for the same reason. Trade-in. it lets me discard 1 lv.8 monster to draw 2 cards. Which serves multiple purposes. 1, thin my deck, 2, get card advantage, 3, I get to put high level monsters in the grave. 4, maximizes the chances of getting ’the creator’ and ’the creator incarnate’ in hand at once. The high amount of lv.8 monsters also bolsters the success rate of monster gate. It’s not uncommon for me to drop the creator on the first turn, and use his effect to arm my field with 2 to 3 high attackers. ’foolish burial’ is also extremely versatile in this deck, because it can get me treeborn frog, which aids the summons of my high level attackers, and nullifies the risk of tributing a ‘morphing jar’ or something similar for monster gate, only to get ‘treeborn frog‘, put the creator in the grave only to be fished out by the effect of ’Herald of Creation’ and dropped onto the field, or even just to put a desired high level monster in the grave to summon with the creators effect. And lastly, lineup of aforementioned high level monsters. Each has justified and earned it’s right to be in this deck. From sacred phoenix’s spell and trap removal, to DMOC’s spell search effect. All are here in balance. Well, that’s the best explanation I can give. The whole reason I even explained all this is because most people seem to turn up their nose at the creator and wouldn’t give it the time of day, and for the people who just don’t get it. As usual, rate 1-10 and comment if ya want.

Also, I wanna thank Gaara-san. He was one of the few people who respected ‘The Creator’ like me, and helped me so much with my original creator deck. Heres to Gaara-san, The Creator, Anime, Manga, and YUGIOH!!! Sayonara!!

John answers:

Konichiwa Liru, love your new s/n, sorry i couldnt comment sooner,

and i love your creator build (9/10), very original, very strong, very straightforward, and very stable, consistent match wins against ddt, magician virus, raiDa, apprentice monarch, samurai, rainbow, crystals, and zombies, and that’s saying something! (i also really like you’re using joan to replenish your lp from mauso)

now here are some small fixes that you may want to look in to

-3 soul exchange
+3 spell striker
he’s an easy special, and he won’t let you lose your battle phase, and since there’s no spell repro, faith, or mse, a dead spell can be afforded

-1 card dest.
-1 morphing
-1 reasoning / gate
+3 phoenix wing wind blast
since mauso will let your opponent easily summon something like their light and darkness dragon or dmoc, force it back to the top so its gone, and if they try to summon again next turn, it’ll cost them even more life, making your job easier, and you don’t need all the extra speed, you need more stability, trade in and your reasoning/other gates is more than enough, and morphing can be a liability due to noblemen and shields

-2 exiled
+1 disc commander
+1 fear monger
disc is an additional target for foolish, and his special generates what? A free draw? Yes please, monger can help with his special, so can creator if you want an extra tribute for dmoc to get in a draw, and that’s a bit more important than destruction, since you can beat down easy enough

-1 torrential
+1 burial from a different dimension
gets back your dmoc, to special summon his big beating ass more and more, and tt can drain fodder for your creator if you dont get to mauso or incarnate right away. Tt for sideboard maybe?

Oh, and trade-in won’t generate card advantage, it’s an even 1-for-1

-1 trade in
-1 lv monster
+2 drawn
________________
X0 card advantage

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Your Questions About Successful Trading Strategy

  1. Pingback: Where To Find Help With Debt Problems » Government Debt Advice

Comments are closed.