One of the biggest misconception in boxing is that the southpaw stance indicates left-hand domination (@Ksidiii should know a thing or two about that...)
Ex-soviet union coaches (Cubans are actually known for the overwhelming portion of southpaw fighters) teach from young age
Ex-soviet union coaches (Cubans are actually known for the overwhelming portion of southpaw fighters) teach from young age
boxers to fight in a southpaw stance, and I can assure you that most of them are right-hand dominant.
So you are probably asking how this is all has to do with trading, right?
Very much like in boxing, experimenting different strategies/models/market helps you develop arsenal
So you are probably asking how this is all has to do with trading, right?
Very much like in boxing, experimenting different strategies/models/market helps you develop arsenal
of tools that can become handy under different market regimes...
I'm an orthodox fighter, so my default stance a leading left hand, but I do train at least twice/week in a southpaw stance to be able working both stances. This helps me become more versatile as a fighter
I'm an orthodox fighter, so my default stance a leading left hand, but I do train at least twice/week in a southpaw stance to be able working both stances. This helps me become more versatile as a fighter
In my trading I run systematically my bread-and-butter trades, which I've been trading for many years. These strategies produce the vast majority of the PnL, and they account for about 70-80% of my total portfolio
But...
I leave some portion of my risk limits to experimental trades. Obviously all trades go through the usual back-testing, analysis, etc... , But at some point we need to have skin in the game, and we must run the day-to-day risk.
I leave some portion of my risk limits to experimental trades. Obviously all trades go through the usual back-testing, analysis, etc... , But at some point we need to have skin in the game, and we must run the day-to-day risk.
This is where the trading part of the strategy comes to play... Running your strategy "live" reveals a lot of information that often we don't see in the back-testing/analysis phase (TC, intraday drawdowns, different market dynamics).
One example that I like to use when emphasizing the importance of running experimental strategies is my past experience with FX Correlation Swaps (@salr_nyc probably saw them back in the early 2000s).
When I traded them about 10yrs ago there were many "opportunities" out there
When I traded them about 10yrs ago there were many "opportunities" out there
the thing is that many of them were just optically appealing (as they are based on WM/Reuters 4pm Fixing, which were rigged at the time)...
Furthermore I didn't understand the size of leverage/exposure until I started trading them
Furthermore I didn't understand the size of leverage/exposure until I started trading them
When you trade a corr swap you have multiple implied variance (not vol) exposures (two ccy pairs + cross pair). Add to that the realized correlation exposure, and you get a product that is almost impossible to be hedged with vanilla option
(and don't get me started about dynamic hedging of both ccy pairs, or unwinding cost with accounting for realized corr, etc..)
My point... It's important to experiment new strategies/trades, but these strategies should consume a small portion of the overall portfolio until
My point... It's important to experiment new strategies/trades, but these strategies should consume a small portion of the overall portfolio until
you conclude that they work as they designed to (or validated against back-tested results).
Sizing is the key factor whenever you introduce new strategy.
Sizing is the key factor whenever you introduce new strategy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
