yes. Even with these 3 criteria met, without a min. dist. between each trade can spell trouble. U can run a backtest to see what I mean. I guess for now I'll wait for RC to get into the details

What is your approach for the subsequent re-entries? That's the missing piece I'm hoping to hear from RC as well. Even if you scale in when MA has breached ur original entry in subsequent trades, you will still need a min. distance between each ...

It's been 4 years since I started this thread, and many have reached out to find out more about this strategy. I'd post my remarks here to address some of the questions: 1) Are you still using this strategy? Ans: I started this as an experiment 4 ...

Thanks for clarifying RC. An additional question - What are your thoughts on lot size as your add to your entries? (Same lot size vs increasing lot sizes as your scale in)

Following your thread with interest, RC. I noted that in your first post you mentioned that "Theta is almost always working against you. As it does though, you will typically have the opportunity to average up. Never average down even if you can. ...

Thanks for the response RC, I appreciate it. I was wondering if you could elaborate more on this point actually: "not too large as this is often where the drawdowns will strike" - How you go about identifying this, if that's what you were alluding ...

Nice thread, RC. How would you go about identifying the ideal "spread"? Finding the percentiles is easy enough, but how large is too large?

Indeed. This has been validated quite a few times. The fractal nature of price at its finest.

Disclosure: I don't trade with AO's method. But I've been a follower of his posts for years. I have tested, analyzed but haven't gone live with his methods before. AO's thread has fascinated me for so long. His messages are quite cryptic indeed, but ...

Trend trading may have lost its popularity over recent years but trends definitely do exist. How you trade them is what really matters

I see. That's quite different from what I've been working on. Once a trade reaches profit, I close it. Different approach to yours.

Drawdown level - No significant difference between the 2 DCA methods. But maybe I misunderstood. What criteria do you use to assess if price is "moving in the same direction as the original trade"? I'm assuming it's adding onto losing positions ...

No significant difference over time it seems. U tried and had any luck?

In phase 2, the DD levels were the same. The only way to reduce it is to introduce a more accurate entry method other than random. But the position mgt bit worked as it should.

If you are using this to trade, do bear in mind that you are taking on a disproportionate amount of risk corresponding to a less significant amount of potential profit. Most of the martingale-based strategies rely on the same principles. Quadratic ...

It's been 2 years since I last posted on this thread. A recent FF member reminded me of this thread. You do see some similar threads around in the forum but nothing too serious. Quite the thrill, entering randomly in the markets and coming out on ...

Closing the trades at one go upon $x profit is one way to do it. You could also consider letting the trades run but reducing the total trade exposure down bit by bit. It sounds abstract but this allows you to maximize your upside while keeping the ...

This is an interesting idea. Even though both ways could be traded. The reverse would be attempts on identifying tops and bottoms. Will be giving this a shot and see if it works well with my existing algos. I would pair this up with higher ...

Interesting posts. I'm running something similar but with 28 pairs. Returns aren't as aggressive as yazzie's but so is the DD.

It's not just about your forward test. What about your tick by tick backtest results for the last 10 years?