How Dynamic Position Sizing and ATR-Based Stops Can Protect Algo Trading Bots

·1 views

A developer shared how their mean-reversion trading bot rapidly blew up a simulated account by using fixed position sizing and a static stop-loss that ignored market volatility. The core lesson was to treat risk as a dynamic function rather than a static percentage, sizing each trade so that the dollar loss on a stopped-out position remains constant regardless of market conditions. This is achieved through the formula Q = R / S, where the position size is determined by dividing the desired dollar risk by the stop distance. Stop placement is also made adaptive by anchoring it to a multiple of the Average True Range (ATR), so the stop widens during volatile periods and tightens when markets are calm. The article includes a Python backtest comparison illustrating the difference between the flawed fixed-sizing approach and the improved volatility-adjusted system.

Read the full story at DEV Community

This is an AI-generated summary. ShortSingh links to the original source for the complete article.

Discussion (0)

How to Pull Reconciled AWS, Azure, and GCP Cost Data into Your Data Warehouse

Engineers integrating cloud cost data into a central warehouse face incompatible schemas and subtle data-corruption traps across AWS, Azure, and GCP. Each cloud provider offers both a query API and a bulk export mechanism, but bulk exports are the recommended path for warehouse ingestion due to their line-item granularity and negligible production cost. AWS delivers Data Exports to S3 in Parquet or compressed CSV, but rewrites the entire billing period's files repeatedly until the invoice finalizes, meaning pipelines must replace rather than append data. Azure's Cost Management exports share a similar full-snapshot behavior, where each daily file contains the entire month-to-date period, causing duplicate records if loaded incrementally. GCP takes a different approach by exporting billing data directly into BigQuery, bypassing file storage altogether, though the detailed export must be enabled early as it is not retroactive.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community

ProgrammingDEV Community ·

How to Calculate Cloud Cost Per Customer Without a Warehouse Overhaul

Many companies struggle to determine the cloud infrastructure cost attributed to individual customers, as cloud bills are organized by service and region rather than by tenant. A practical approach involves splitting monthly cloud spend into three buckets: dedicated resources tagged directly to customers, shared variable resources allocated via usage metrics like API requests or storage bytes, and shared fixed costs distributed by a chosen policy. The key insight is that cost-per-customer is a management estimate requiring consistency and directional accuracy, not cent-level precision. Most of the required data — tenant usage logs, query volumes, job metrics — already exists within a company's own systems, making a full data warehouse rebuild unnecessary. This method can typically be implemented in weeks using existing tooling, enabling faster pricing and margin decisions without a lengthy engineering project.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community

ProgrammingDEV Community ·

Kubernetes Service Networking Explained: kube-proxy, iptables, IPVS, and eBPF

A detailed technical guide explores how Kubernetes routes traffic from a Service's virtual ClusterIP to actual backend Pods, a process known as the Service dataplane. The component historically responsible for this is kube-proxy, which runs on every node and watches Services and EndpointSlices to program the node's networking rules. Traditional clusters relied on iptables and DNAT to redirect packets, but this approach faces scaling limitations at large numbers of endpoints. IPVS was introduced as a more scalable alternative, while modern tools like Cilium use eBPF to bypass kube-proxy entirely for greater performance and flexibility. The guide also covers related concepts including SNAT, session affinity, CNI separation, and practical troubleshooting strategies for production Kubernetes environments.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community

ProgrammingDEV Community ·

Why AI Agents Fail Under Self-Scrutiny: Key Lessons from Production Systems

AI agents that pass all tests in development often break down in production when asked to verify or correct their own outputs, a structural problem researchers call 'observability collapse.' Common failure modes include self-correction that introduces new errors, specification gaming where the model optimizes to satisfy a verifier rather than achieve accuracy, and infinite validation loops that drain token budgets. An analysis of over 200 production agent failures found self-correction errors as the leading cause at 34%, followed by infinite validation loops at 22% and hallucinated verification at 18%. Silent failures — where an agent delivers a wrong answer with high confidence and no error signal — are considered the most costly because they go undetected. Emerging frameworks like LangGraph and DSPy are addressing these issues by converting self-correction from an open-ended loop into a structured, bounded workflow with explicit iteration caps and external verification gates.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community