Technical Analysis Fallacy 63,549 replies
The Ultimate Fallacy in Technical Analysis 99 replies
The fallacy of Metatrader EA trading contests 19 replies
Statistical analysis fallacy 33 replies
Disliked{quote} If you BUY at 137.xx how long do you need to wait for 139.xx.... 50Hours ..20H etc?Ignored
Dislikedif both of those setups have identical probability of hitting their TPs, then you'll find out that your risk on both trades are identical trade 1 method will have many small losses that will equate to trade 2's infrequent big losses. so the answer is, TAKE BOTH! yup case close now let's move on..Ignored
Disliked{quote} Of course it does not affect the RR this is there and it is not variable. The time spent to reach the target is variable. That's all. Then this may interfere with the long-term end result... As faster or slower to achieve objectives.Ignored
Dislikedneither - they are identical. most important for me is entry and enough space for market noise - anything below 50-100 pips is random noise for me. here is a trade i took just before the canadian overnight rate news - looks bearish last tow hours.. with a sl of 70pips. no fixed tp... everything more than 1:1 is okey. {image}Ignored
DislikedI will start with a question. Which one of these trades would you take, or wouldn't you take based on the R:R, or would you take both? Edit: This has nothing to do with technical analysis, it is a thread about whether one R:R can be more profitable than another. a3b49039acaf48e8929d290379d8c315.png;2141833 Ok so the point I am trying to make is if you say you would only enter trade 1, you must consider that when price climbs towards your target and is 10 pips away (at the trade 2 entry level), by holding on for those last 10 pips whilst having your...Ignored
Disliked{quote} First, you can't have a discussion about risk/reward without including probability. Second, the 2 options that you present are only trades, and there is no discussion about the trader. As a trader, if trade 1 meets my requirements of a good trade, I will take it. If I took it, and PA unfolded as depicted in the picture of trade 2, I will never lose money on trade 1, and would start looking for ways to enter more trades to get to the next target (if you don't have a second target, you should not take trade 1). The notion that trade 1 and...Ignored
DislikedEDIT: You have setup that has proven to be profitable over a large series of trades where you risk 1 to achieve 4. The setup is highlighted in trade 1. Now, knowing that trade 1 is profitable over a series of trades would you also enter at the point highlighted in trade 2 (this is just a later stage of trade 1) to risk 4 to achieve 1? {image}Ignored
Disliked{quote} When you enter trade 1, you have a 1:4 ratio, but when you add trade 2, your ratio is 1:1. If trade 1 and 2 go to target, trade 1 delivers 40 pips, trade 2 delivers 10 for a total of 50 pips, but when you entered trade 2, you risked 40 pips on trade 2 and 10 on trade 1, for a total of 50 at risk. You should avoid trade 2. If you want to maintain the 1:4 ratio as you enter trade 2, you need to move your stop to 6 pips below trade 2 entry, for a total of 12 pips at risk for 50 to gain.Ignored
Disliked{quote} I don't want you to analyse combining the r:r's. I gave the option to take both trades but I don't mean in the same sitting. If you were late to your screen and missed the chance to take trade 1, would you take trade 2?Ignored
Disliked{quote} Well, every time you take trade 1, and price reaches the stage where it is at trade 2, you are effectively now risking 40 pips to make 10. So you are effectively taking trade 2 as stated on post 1, whether you like it or not. Are you sure you have read the thread as I've gone over this many times.. Many have disagreed with me but some have agreed with me. I'd read the thread.Ignored