Wolf1877 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 5:22 pm
Kafkaesque wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:32 pm
I know, this isn't what you're asking, but I'll leave it here all the same: 20% seems a hell of a lot on one position, under even the best of circumstances, much less while still "gaining experience".
Personally, I used a Kelly approach amended for this kind of trading. Might be a bit conservative for some? But 20% seems huge, or is it just me?
Kafkaesque, as a relative newbie I'm not sure what the general consensus is. Obviously I wasnt expecting to lose 20% or win 20% on a single market, more like win up to 4% and maybe lose up to 2%. But if you get caught mid trade then it is possible to lose the entire stake or more if lay positions are left open when a network outage strikes. Happy to hear any opinions on this though.
I won't pretend to know, what you're staking should be

It's just, as BF has been running for the last year or whatever, it's not only an outage on your side of things, you should be worried about

So, no matter the intention of only losing a max of 2%, you're in reality risking 20% all the same a certain percentage of time. Make you're own judgement of what that percentage is, given the risk of an outage on your end, or of BF going down.
FWIW, I'd look into Kelly Criterion (and possibly other staking methods) as well as risk of ruin. Also, to help you use those tools, try to cut the maybe from "maybe lose up to..." via stop-loss or other methods to determine risk in any given trade, plus add on whatever you feel is appropriate towards your actual exposure, ie. somewhere in between 2% and 20% in the above scenario. Finally, remove more like from "more like win...." and try to determine your average expected yield or roi (in as many differenciated scenarios as possibly), as you gain experience and tangible results to extract data from.
I'm by no means a guru on this subject, so just my two cents, and take it for what it's worth
