Contest Support wrote:
salam_sky wrote:
from last 4 days i can not contribute to trades comments. i do not know what is the problem.
Support has contacted you by email for further assistance. Please direct such questions to
[email protected] and provide more details about the issue.
As I understand, Dukascopy has put in place all the rules, restrictions & complex criteria to ensure that realistic, reasonable trading (as opposed to high-risk gambling) is promoted & rewarded within the contest but honestly, has that occurred over the course of more than 2 years? Sorry but I don't think so. In fact, most of the top-rankers in these contests have been engaging in high-risk trading that isn't realistically consistently sustainable, where their equity goes to 500,000 one month & 5,000 the next month: most of their Average EOM Equity is below the initial deposits of 100,000, which shows the huge risks they are taking.
It's probably because the only criterion that directly & significantly demonstrates risk (drawdown) has a weightage of about 3.64%! And a lack of reward for risk-management means that traders take overleveraged, high-risk trades, if they pay off then they win big on performance as well as pips & popularity follows, if not then they have nothing to lose since it's just a demo & there will be no negative consequences on their future contest-months either. Now, I'm not trying to denigrate the positive things achieved by these traders but if Dukascopy really wishes to promote realistic & sound trading then wouldn't rewarding traders based on Risk-Adjusted-Returns be the way to go?
I agree with the earlier commenter in that there's no need to count pips separately since it's the profit (& the risk taken to gain it) is important than pips, & Dukascopy's reasoning has been to say that they don't want larger lot-size traders to dominate over those who use smaller, reasonable lot-sizes & better money-management but if the grading is done based on Risk-Adjusted-Returns then this reasoning wouldn't stand because high-risk gamblers would be at a disadvantage anyway.
There can be something like "Average Monthly Drawdown" which is obviously the average of
maximum drawdown suffered by the trader in each participating month. So the scores could be something like :
Trader A - Performance - 200,000, Return - 100%, Average Monthly Drawdown - 20% then Risk-Adjusted-Return will be 100/20 = 5
Trader B - P - 150,000, R - 50%, AMD - 5% then RAR - 50/5 = 10
Trader B would get a better score because even though Trader A made more profit, he is taking 4 times the risk so in order for him to get on par with Trader B, he must generate 4 times the profit!
I also agree with the commenter that likens trading to an art-form & asking not to put restrictions on artists' creativity. By putting all these rules & restrictions that hinder various trading styles, one might get the impression that Dukascopy doesn't value individuality & creativity of various traders.
Trading forex is tough, finding a successful method that works consistently is tough so it's going to put many traders off & reduce participation in the contest as they aren't allowed to trade their styles that work for them, due to all the restrictions & I don't think that helps Dukascopy's aim of building a stronger community. And afterall, irrespective of whether one is scalping, S&R, swing or positional trading or whatever else, so long as one is producing good risk-adjusted returns, one ought to be considered to be engaging in sound trading.
And again, the purpose of these restrictions is to encourage sound trading but may be the same purpose could be achieved more effectively & WITHOUT such massive restrictions with an RAR-based model of grading.
Be it the rules or the grading criteria, keeping things as simple as possible will definitely attract more participation, & an RAR model of grading with clear emphasis on sound trading & risk-management will help many traders learn from the top traders as to how they should manage risk while maximizing their returns, & that will help Dukascopy achieve their aim of building a better community around itself.
Just my two cents, I hope they'll be considered to be constructive.