|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Lionel,
It's probably "Thirteen against the bank" by Norman Leigh.
Pierre Tremblay
Lionel Issen a écrit :
> This was published as fiction in a pocket book about 30 years ago. I
> don't remember the title, but it probably was something about
> gambling, like gambling, roulette, or break the bank. Since the system
> was the reverse of conventional wisdom, the Martindale. it just might
> work.Lionel Issen
> lissen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Macromnt@xxxxxxx
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 7:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Naz 100 futures buy and hold system
> In a message dated 7/13/01 4:24:24 PM Eastern Daylight
> Time,
> gcwallace@xxxxxxxx writes:
>
>
>
> > No
> > money management system can turn a net losing game or
> > system into a
> > winner.
> >
>
>
> Hi!
>
> I am sorry to disagree. As a matter of fact to take the same
> example of
> roulette it has been done. About 25 years ago a group of
> Englishmen went
> around the casinos of Europe and won playing with a money
> management system
> that was exacly the opposite of the classical martingal:
> each time they were
> losing they were reducing there bets but were letting their
> profits run up to
> the casino limit when they had a winning strike. I don't
> remember the details
> but very quickly they were not allowed to step in any
> casino. They were
> putting the casinos in the position of the beginner gambler
> who plays a
> martingale. But we agree on this : this is your
> anti-martingale. For me an
> anti martingale is money management.
>
> There are some other martingales that are a little bit more
> subtil that
> sinply doubling every losing bet. For instance you write a
> column with the
> following numbers:
> 1
> 2
> 2
> 1
> 2
> 2
> You first bet will be 3 (the sum of the first and the last
> number). If you
> win you cross the first and the last number and your next
> bet is 4 (the sum
> of the first and the last remaining number). If you lose you
> writ the amount
> of your first bet at the bottom of the column and you gamble
> the sum of the
> first and the last (4). And so on till you have crossed all
> the numbers. then
> you start a new columd. It works most of the time... till it
> does not work.
>
> Anyway all those martingale end up with ruin and even if
> they did not the
> potential profit is far to small in comparaison with the
> capital engaged. If
> teh capitalization needed to trade this system (and to lose)
> on the Nasdaq
> would have been over $1M starting when the Nasdaq was
> between 4000 and 5000,
> what would have happened if the Nasdaq had gone up to 6000.
> The (lucky)
> investor would have had one position winning and the gain
> would have been
> very small compared with the reserve needed tro trade this
> martingale to the
> current Nasdaq level (assuming that it does not go lower).
>
> About money management turning a losing game into a winner
> it seems to me
> that trading the markets does not have a psoitive
> expectation if you take
> into account slippage and commissions. If we make money on
> the markets if
> thanks to good money management. You can object that the
> stock market has a
> positive expectation because it ALWAYS goes up over a long
> period of time.
> However the studies shows that this long period of time is
> 75 years and I am
> not ready to wait so long to make sure that history repeats
> itself.
>
>
>
>
|