Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
23 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent coverage of a difficult topic, November 20, 2000
... this book is incredible. I have a degree in mathematics and the principles expressed are extremely sound -- but far more important than the formulas are the first couple of chapters which cause you to view trading in a very different, and statistical, manner. Although the theories in this book can really only be applied to a trading system (which I haven't really used), after reading this book over several times I understand that there is a mathematical certainty that I will eventually lose my trading capital if I don't start approaching trading in a more systematic fashion. Anyway, I highly recommend it -- the sections on gambling theory alone are worth buying it.
|
|
|
23 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Beware applying optimal f to actual trading, March 1, 2000
By A Customer
The problem with optimal f is that the calculation is highly dependent on the largest loss on a trade (not drawdown) experienced in backtesting. If you use optimal f and the largest loss in actual trading is greater than the loss experienced in backtesting, you will go bankrupt. Vince deals with this problem in an offhanded manner by suggesting that the actual f you use should be "padded". OK, so in the end you don't even use the actual optimal f, you pad it. And how much do I pad it by? Vince is silent on this question. So the purpose of optimal f - to decide by formula how much capital to allocate to a trade - is totally negated by the fact that you must "pad" optimal f. And you must pad it by a qualitativly determined amount because, again, Vince gives no formula on how much to pad it by. Optimal f is totally useless for system traders or any other trader for that matter.
|
|
|
8 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Top notch, August 2, 2005
I found this book to be amazingly good. Equities traders should be forwarned that "Optimal f" is employed here for commodities traders that can make use of big margin, but Vince may have addressed this issue in his more recent books.
It seems a quite a few people get angry or perplexed by optimal f, and the reasons boil down to a handful: Objection: Employing Optimal f will introduce you to levels of risk (large drawdowns) you find disagreeable. Response: That's OK, the mathematical reasoning is not invalidated by the extent to which one is risk averse. If you don't like using the largest historical loss to calculate Optimal f, you can use far larger datasets to produce more radical outliers, or even estimate catastrophic (percentage) losses.
Objection: The whole scheme seems a little too radical. Response: This is the very thing that makes the book so refreshing. Vince has done his own thinking, and he has done quite a bit of thinking very carefully. I wish I had him on my team.
Objection: The book contains too much math. Response: yes, this is mathematical stuff we are dealing with. You can trade more simply, but some of us want ideas for a better edge.
Objection: The book contains primitive math. Response: this is a product of the author's kindly tone. He is not attempting to astound you with his knowledge, but advancing new ideas in plain language, and try to keep the stragglers up with the main pack as they read. I found the tone conciliatory and courteous.
Throughout, Vince does his own thinking, and the burden of the book is not what you usually find. Most trading books I have read contain a little useful material, but seems to have been launched mainly to gain the author fame and income. This book is different. Vince has real ideas, thinks way beyond the "safe zone" and the book has completely reshaped my understanding of money management.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|