Disliked{quote}I seem to have more luck when my trading is "account based" rather than "market based" .Ignored
Which one do you prefer: Metatrader (MQL) or cTrader (cAlgo)? 17 replies
Bar chart vs Candle stick which one do you prefer? 6 replies
Risk/Reward and % win... Which do you prefer? 8 replies
Long term or short term which one u prefer? 5 replies
which one you prefer? 6 replies
Disliked{quote} Responding to demand and creating demand for useless or unattainable things are two completely different things. The bullshit that is peddled in this industry is much like the bullshit peddled in the fashion industry who take the most beautiful women in the world and then airbrush their photos. What they are creating demand for is unattainable - it doesn't exist.Ignored
QuoteDislikedI don't believe it has always been this way. For one, they didn't have the avenues such as TV and the internet to constantly bombard the public. But if that is all it was, bombardment, then that would be fine. But the study of phsychology has come a long way and marketing leans heavily on this. The colours, sounds, playing on peoples fear, greed, need to fit in etc. Hugely profitable companies spending huge portions of their revenue to create demand for useless crap and quests that can never be satisfied, at least not by the solutions they offer....
Disliked{quote} Given that once I am committed to a trade the price can do anything, the only thing that matters is the account. Once I have money on a trade, it's the money that matters and not the price action.Ignored
DislikedPainstakingly calculating your RR when it is positive gives you that warm and fuzzy feeling that may be you are onto something... only to be proven very wrong after the next trade or two. RR was created by Mr. Tharp so that he could sell books and speaking engagements... How can you be certain or your risk-reward ratio when the outcome (reward) is a random event?. The risk can be known but never the reward. Therefore you can never rely on the current expectancy for the future. Mr. Tharp's work has the appearance of solid math and logic but is totally...Ignored
QuoteDislikedFor example the major pairs 10 years ago use to be a little bit more quiet with more stable trends. Now the days are crazy with all that algo trading and HFT going on. Even during "quiet" times prices are changing 20-30 times per sec. on most ECNs.
QuoteDislikedExactly. It is the way things are marketed these days. Much of modern marketing targets the lazy (or perhaps just time constrained) and instant gratification seeking behaviour that is prevalent in our societies. ...
The one easy fix that is the answer to all your dreams.
I think the marketing around the trading industry is more amplified in this aspect than most other industries.
QuoteDislikedIts the same today as it was a hundred years ago with bucket shops. Its not the fault of modern marketing or brokers. They are simply responding to a demand. People tend to have biases that lead to sabotage when confronted with the nature of markets. The game of speculation is as old as the hills and so is human nature.
QuoteDislikedHow can you be certain or your risk-reward ratio when the outcome (reward) is a random event?. The risk can be known but never the reward.
QuoteDislikedGiven that once I am committed to a trade the price can do anything, the only thing that matters is the account.
Once I have money on a trade, it's the money that matters and not the price action.
QuoteDislikedTharp's work is correct. He just over-simplified to a simple WIN R or LOSE ONE outcome to make things easy to understand for everybody. Sure in real life it is a lil' bit more complex. But I'm sure his message would have certainly not been understood if he used integrals of integrals of unknown probability distributions over latent variables.
People have a big hurdle with probabilities. Imagine when you explain that some probability itself is random... Now you lost 99% of your audience explain the few people left that those unknown probabilities...
Disliked@alphaomega {quote} So do you think it's a good thing that the market is filled with more participants and a lot of inefficiencies on micro time frame or what?Ignored
> cpnl; trades; cpnl/trades; wins/trades [1] 0.5036 [1] 1064 [1] 0.0004733083 [1] 0.7133459
DislikedFor positive expectancy, buy / sell when price is above/below moving average of length x, use 70m pip stop, 30m pip target. Stop/target numbers can be switched and there are also positive values with approximately 30% wins. To somewhat increase avg profit per trade, require price to be y pips above/below average to buy/sell. Don't allow reversals, just close trade on stop/target.Ignored
Disliked{quote} Hard to make people accept that their reward is a random variable. When a trader uses a fixed SL his risk is still a random variable because of slippage, gap, flash crash, low liquidity widening the spread... Try and convince a trader that his winrate is again a random variable too because it is impacted by the future market condition and he will still refuse to accept that the logical conclusion is that his equity curve is a random walk; hopefully with a positive drift. Tharp's work is correct. He just over-simplified to a simple WIN R...Ignored
Disliked{quote} I have always questioned the logic behind the the concept of "R:R ratio". To my understanding, this approach leads to cut the profitable trades and leave the losing trades to hit the stop loss where both can be managed in more efficient way. I believe markets or random most of the time except specific conditions and that fixed R:R is meaningless to greater extend.Ignored
QuoteDislikedI believe markets or random most of the time except specific conditions and that fixed R:R is meaningless to greater extend.
Disliked{quote} First this is not an approach. Second it has nothing to do with setting a TP or not. Whatever method you use your profit/loss will always be some multiple of your risk. If you set no SL at all the risk is the loss you would get at MC. R:R is the ratio between the AVERAGE profit you make when your trade is a winner and the AVERAGE loss you make when your trade is a loser. There is no reason for it to be fixed or pre-defined. You don't decide your R:R you estimate it from your trades journal. {quote} I personally believe markets are always...Ignored
DislikedSecond it has nothing to do with setting a TP or not. Whatever method you use your profit/loss will always be some multiple of your risk. If you set no SL at all the risk is the loss you would get at MC. R:R is the ratio between the AVERAGE profit you make when your trade is a winner and the AVERAGE loss you make when your trade is a loser. There is no reason for it to be fixed or pre-defined. You don't decide your R:R you estimate it from your trades journal.Ignored
DislikedI made some simulations, Just for the sake of the argument, and to show/prove mathematically, that high Win rate is superior to high RR. Note that I am not saying which one is easier to achieve.Ignored
Disliked{quote} This is interesting but *almost* useless in real world application as it assumes that high R:R goes hand in hand with low win rate and vice versa which is not the case. But I assume you already know this due to your previous post and your comment 'Note that I am not saying which one is easier to achieve'.Ignored
Disliked{quote} Hmmm.... Show me one (just one) strategy producing high win rate combined with high RR. Just one!Ignored
Disliked{quote} Hmmm.... Show me one (just one) strategy producing high win rate combined with high RR. Just one! I bet you can't,........ because it just doesn't exist! This is basic probability in context of markets. Mixing high win rate with high RR is like mixing oil with water. It just doesn't work no matter how hard you try!Ignored