[quote=Intu;3746961]That was an interesting read, if thread followers have missed it, please check out Razzle's #32 post .pdf in this thread.
You see I did read this and it doesn't stack up. First off, rather than compare it against any of their esoteric strategies, you compare it against a baseline of a simple all in entry against a static take profit. If you do that, it really doesn't and cannot add up, unless in the second position you're actually increasing your risk by considering it 'another' position. If you split the original risk across the first position, and a potential second, and your entries are good, you'll have a lower average profit compared to the baseline.
The mean reversion argument DS states above I can see. This... I just don't get it.
"In particular, the[font=Times New Roman]
double-down strategy, considered risky
by some practitioners, gave more than a
350% larger return over the two-tiered
strategy and more than a 150% larger
return over the basic three-tiered strategy"
You see I did read this and it doesn't stack up. First off, rather than compare it against any of their esoteric strategies, you compare it against a baseline of a simple all in entry against a static take profit. If you do that, it really doesn't and cannot add up, unless in the second position you're actually increasing your risk by considering it 'another' position. If you split the original risk across the first position, and a potential second, and your entries are good, you'll have a lower average profit compared to the baseline.
The mean reversion argument DS states above I can see. This... I just don't get it.