Disliked@Hanover
The strategy itself is martingale. Saying apply the strategy without martingale is missing the point.Ignored
The following has been posted a zillion times already: it's mathematically impossible for any kind of MM (i.e. position sizing, or staking system; as opposed to trade management, or exits) to provide an edge.
By way of proof, I attached a XLS to this post (which also explores martingale concepts). Use martingale, or any staking system of your choice, to try to attain positive expectancy. No matter what you do, expectancy is always zero. The only way to attain positive expectancy is to tinker with the win rate.
If you think about it, exactly the same applies to trading, except there is one added complication not covered by the XLS, namely that not all trades need to offer a 1:1 payoff (i.e. return:risk). The market is your casino, and (just like with roulette) you can play a game that offers a N:1 payoff (TP:SL ratio).** If (and I stress IF) the probability of price rising/falling at all times was 50/50, then your win to loss rate would - over a large enough sample of trades - be the exact inverse of your N:1 payoff, no matter what entry/exit strategies you use. (But the probability isn't exactly 50/50, and that's why it's possible to gain an edge).
[** of course you can play more complex 'games', using trailing stops, scaling in/out with multiple entry/exit levels, etc]
Now to address the MM part. If your entry/exit strategy doesn't provide an edge, then by varying the bet/position size, you're doing nothing more than gambling that you'll win by having bigger bets on winning trades, and smaller bets on losing ones. Hence unless you know in advance which trades are more likely to win, you're doing nothing more than guessing, and given enough time, the 'luck' will balance itself out. Hence my comment that MM can't provide an edge.
This is not a negative post. It's perfectly possible to make an income from trading - there are folk out there doing it - but it can't be achieved by tinkering with position sizes. You need to somehow find a way of attaining an edge through your entries and exits, i.e. being net long when price is rising, and net short when it's falling, frequently/heavily enough to overcome costs (spreads, swaps, etc). That is always the bottom line, no matter how complex your game plan is.
Of course all this is assuming that you want to make money long term, as opposed to having some fun gambling, before the costs ensure that the market eventually takes your money.