A.I.M. Users Bulletin Board

[Conrad]

Clive,

I think in a sense your remarks here may answer my question in my response to you previous post, in which you explained the mechanics for trade size calculation. I gather from this that you are saying that concentrating (scaling) the trades at the outer limits only works all the time if the price behaviour is predictable. . .like for the Lichello Test series. . or any such repetitive behaviour. You have referred to that in comments to others and I completely understand that. The chance of a drastic behavioural change in the price cycling or diving is real and the chosen trade system is practically useless. I also realise that.

With my strong progressive scheme I would mostly miss the volatility capture if the price start cycling on a narrow band about the Mid Point. I also understand that. My point here is that I would "notice" such change in behaviour "shortly" after it happens and then adapt to a new trading range that is better for the new behaviour. I realise that I would constantly chase the changing behaviour and that with this scheme the stock could drop sharply at the narrow lower limit and then the cash would be already gone in a previous buy, and then waiting a long time for a recovery could be a painful experience OK and could mean losing money, that too I understand, but this can happen with any other system that is based on being fully invested at the bottom with the price dropping further. TA investors can also be caught by that type of loss.

What then is the extra danger if some concentration of trades at the limits is used? I can easily soften up the strength of the progression so that there is more trading activity around the midpoint. . . it means simply using the Vortex AIM system which trades more evenly from top to bottom if the aggression factors are not too extremely high.

As for the betting schemes in this link

http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/progress/prog1.htm

I recognise we have discussed these before when we started talking about structuring the AIM Trades this way. Especially I remember the discussion about the Martingale scheme. . .I remember this from when I was experimenting with the FOREX Testing in Ouanda.
I can remember hardly any of the fine details of the linked discussion
after reading it. . . my short term memory is get shorter so that I can not grasp the essence of detailed explanations.

I will ponder if digging deeper in my progressive trading ladder concept makes sense.
Maybe I can spare you spending so much time on my way-out endeavours!
Thanks in any case for trying so hard!