Menu
Sister Sites

Options

Bookmark Thread

First Page First Unread Last Page Last Post

Print Thread

Similar Threads

I think Oanda FXTrade is unreliable 507 replies

List of unreliable brokers (updated once a week) 50 replies

NordFX stop hunting, unreliable with quotes 4 replies

Unreliable demo server 8 replies

Attachments: It's Unreliable
Exit Attachments

It's Unreliable

Quoting here2there
{quote} Some people base their trades on higher time frames, such as H4 or the Daily, and then look for an entry point on the 5 minute chart. These are not in it for quick pips. Their goal is to get in at a good price, and then ride the trade for as long as they can. That's not scalping in my opinion. Scalpers, on the other hand, are looking for quick pips. Their goal is to profitably get in and out of a trade quickly. It's uncommon for them to trade anything above the 30 minute chart. And they usually trade several times a day. I am not interested...

Here 2 there, is this the main point of this thread? Is this what you are trying to find? A system based on higher timeframes with a 5 min sniper style entry, a trade which you can hold for a day or longer?
TIME is the most valuable commodity
Quoting Konichiwhaat
{quote} Here 2 there, is this the main point of this thread? Is this what you are trying to find? A system based on higher timeframes with a 5 min sniper style entry, a trade which you can hold for a day or longer?
If your win rate is less than 50%, then your strategy is apparently no better than flipping a coin. If you are ahead financially using such a strategy, then it's likely not the strategy that is helping you to succeed, but rather good risk management.

Could it be possible that if you ditch the strategy and just flip a coin and apply good risk management, that you may end up with similar results, and possibly even better results? Are those lines one draws on a chart really helping? Are those indicators even of benefit under such circumstances? Is all of that information (fundamentals) you are applying to your trading really helping you?

But let's suppose your win rate is greater than 50%, and you are profitable. What else could it mean but that you have apparently found an edge?

If your win rate is greater than 50%, and you have lost more money than you have gained, then it's likely not your strategy that is bad, but rather your risk management seems to be a problem. If you improve your risk management, then it would seem you should be in profit.

How many traders have been duped into believing they need some special indicator, or membership to a private trading group, or a trading course by some guru, or access to hidden information, in order to have an edge in the market? Is this stuff really helping?

If it really gives a trader an edge, then it should not be difficult for someone to prove this by taking the 100 trade challenge.

Do you get the point now?

Note: I am not advocating that traders should base their decisions on a toss of a coin. I would hope that people in here would be smart enough to understand this. It's a matter of addressing what really works VS what people merely believe works. There is a difference.
You don't know because you don't ask.
to here2there, not trying to overstep here just my 2cents.

what i have found reliable as greater than 50% =>

probabilities are ambiguous down to the person's perception. If a person sees only one way to understand them then losses will follow. I use a simple a-b-c setup. 1 for scalp, 1 for momentum and one for big move. at the extreme if im around for it.

usually the scalp completes. and so does the small momentum trade. and the biggest tp order sometimes pays off and other times no. i tried it the 3 ways separately but found myself interfering with the trades so i backed off and now i just let it play out. this issue with coin tosses, has me thinking that people are forgetting that peer group learning only works in think tanks but is next to useless when each person has a stake in personal outcomes.

one point i know has helped me -> majority of people have not experienced trading enough to know what works short medium and long term.

People eg PeterCaleb (im not a fan but he does raise interesting points) who shows several ways to see probabilities is someone i would suggest, no im not a follower. i think arguing about surface problems gets no where fast.

the approach i use is a simple combo of a scalp and two bigger move trade orders. if you've gone crazy with confusion about trading then simplify it. whats the point in arguing people.

thanks here2there for letting me be here still.
I believe simple is best
Quoting here2there
{quote} If your win rate is less than 50%, then your strategy is apparently no better than flipping a coin. If you are ahead financially using such a strategy, then it's likely not the strategy that is helping you to succeed, but rather good risk management. Could it be possible that if you ditch the strategy and just flip a coin and apply good risk management, that you may end up with similar results, and possibly even better results?
No, it's not possible because you should have an understanding of price and trend. my entire money management system is to cut the losing trades at 0.5-3 percent, there's nothing else to it, period. you should at the very least have an understanding of price and trend to compensate for your losing trades.

To me, you either can read the price or you can't, price is the truth. nothing works all of the time but everything works some of the time.
"If your win rate is less than 50%, then your strategy is apparently no better than flipping a coin"

I'm not so sure...

Do you not think there are traders out there with a 40% win rate or less who are successful? ie, say a swing trader for example, who trades only when price is at the furthest point on a monthly swing. They may attempt to enter 5,6,7 or more times before getting in without getting stopped out. In this case, there win rate may be lower, but the R:R once in could be as big as 20:1

In this case, they had to carry the phycological burn of several losses first before finally getting a good spot, and a lot of traders cant handle this. But the pay off would be worth it.
TIME is the most valuable commodity
Quoting Konichiwhaat
"If your win rate is less than 50%, then your strategy is apparently no better than flipping a coin" I'm not so sure... Do you not think there are traders out there with a 40% win rate or less who are successful? ie, say a swing trader for example, who trades only when price is at the furthest point on a monthly swing. They may attempt to enter 5,6,7 or more times before getting in without getting stopped out. In this case, there win rate may be lower, but the R:R once in could be as big as 20:1 In this case, they had to carry the phycological burn...
If the win rate is exactly 50% and SL = PT, then trading is unsuccessful due to the broker's fees.
Please excuse the bad English via Google Translate.
here2there

I don't know, are you painting yourself a corner as thinking what you are looking for.

These are assumption, what you has wrote earlier.

Using small account, long trading window, no need to follow markets. (Don't have time to watch markets or do multiple trades per day).
If you want look much further, its contradiction of using time, because you need to dig more information which can influence the price.

Having low DD ?

How about buying options ?, can find cheap ones, and suitable for smaller accounts.

Ask GeFx what it needs to be successful trader and not be a scalper.

Is it easier be "regulated" markets like a stock, where is much more information available,about companies, market internals .......
Piling money to ETF's, until taper starts.
Quoting here2there
{quote} You're out of here. It's my thread, and I have a right to make the rules. If you don't like my rules, then you can make your own thread with your own rules.
here2there.. we are buddies hope you wont ban me out

think you did mistake. joyny is profitable trader with consistent profits.
Fluctuations All Time Return: 498.5%
Quoting gepards
{quote} here2there.. we are buddies hope you wont ban me out think you did mistake. joyny is profitable trader with consistent profits.
The reason I banned him from the thread is because he made accusations against me about disrespecting other traders in here, and also tried to make it look like I had a personal problem because I have rules in the thread.

I respect your opinion. Since you feel I have made a mistake, I will give him another chance to participate in the thread.
You don't know because you don't ask.
Quoting here2there
After much study of the Forex market, and the implementation of various strategies and indicators, I have come to the conclusion that most of what I have learned, and most of what is being taught, is unreliable. Moving average crosses, supply and demand zones, volume profile, tick volume, MACD, RSI, channel trading, Bollinger bands, sentiment trading, psychological levels, most candlestick patterns, etc..., all seem to be unreliable when it comes to having a substantial win rate resulting in good profits by the end of the year. The people marketing...
Every system can be profitable just not to every Trader & without proper money management, no system is profitable.
Find The Pain Points On Your Chart & Trade Off Those Levels
Quoting ArnoldPike
to here2there, not trying to overstep here just my 2cents. what i have found reliable as greater than 50% => probabilities are ambiguous down to the person's perception. If a person sees only one way to understand them then losses will follow. I use a simple a-b-c setup. 1 for scalp, 1 for momentum and one for big move. at the extreme if im around for it. usually the scalp completes. and so does the small momentum trade. and the biggest tp order sometimes pays off and other times no. i tried it the 3 ways separately but found myself interfering...
Isn't there just an inter-relationship between the RR ratio and the winrate? You can have a 'winning system' if the winrate is 50% but the RR has to be >1:1. Or you can have a 30% winning system but then the RR has to be >1:2.3333. Alternatively a 70% winning system is successful if the RR is better than 1:0.42 [not allowing here for any transaction/trading costs or spread].
Quoting zero00
{quote} It's not a video game to worry about your stats, you're here to first minimize your risk and then maximize your gains. future is unknown but if your win rate is 99 percent and that losing trade wipes your account, what good is a high win rate?
It, is not a video game (I have no idea about video games, not my department) but it is a game… game of probability. With a 40% win rate you can also wipes your account with one unsuccessful trade.
One should take care of both. Higher Win rate lower average DD.
B Regrds
BN
Quoting here2there
system must have a win rate greater than 50%
Precisely what neural network analysis can show - that a chaotic system (which is by definition unpredictable) consistently in the long-run cannot be predicted. And major markets are pretty chaotic.
So statistically maybe you can get an edge just above 50% (aren't casino winning edges pretty small, too?) if we are speaking strictly technical here, which will be profitable but not too practical for most traders. (Although that could be immune to the fundamental factors, and as such shows profit even in pandemics...in fact, any unpredictable fundamental pressures cuold be the upside)
And ALL technical indicators that are based solely on technical variables - price and any whichever derivative of that price, volume, etc - are subject to the unpredictability of chaotic systems over the long-run.
Again, I'm writing from a purely technical standpoint.
Quoting joyny
{image} Trading breakouts 2 years.
There's a lot of fundamentals that goes into breakouts, thus probably the higher win ratio. The original poster seems to be talking mostly about technical trading, which is closer to 50%.
Quoting Toccata
{quote} Isn't there just an inter-relationship between the RR ratio and the winrate? You can have a 'winning system' if the winrate is 50% but the RR has to be >1:1. Or you can have a 30% winning system but then the RR has to be >1:2.3333. Alternatively a 70% winning system is successful if the RR is better than 1:0.42 [not allowing here for any transaction/trading costs or spread].
from what ive learned so far -> majority of people think too much about some things and not others too. like i said on early post i see people generating their own mistakes. so how can anyone argue that A is better than B if a person is searching with one eye closed? ive learned that numbers may not lie but people do. to themselves and others. so trying to track something with one eye closed is lethal for your money.

i see RR as a guide. the market i trade tells me whats happening and i adjust as we go. i dont auto trade. dont see the sense in that as that leads to believing markets are chaotic or predicable with no point of view to counter it and no way to learn anything new that could contradict that belief. as i see it, this is a formative issue with traders. im no brainiac but i reckon that any RR and SR has to be put in perspective. my perspective is connected with that market then its apples for apples.

something ive learned is -> a win SR is not evidence of RR use. its only showing what you let it. my hardest lesson has been to let go of my assumptions. 50% of what? of what belief? of what evidence? one trade i put on the market only moved 0.4pips behind my order then went my way. another one i got in 10.7pips too early. but both were ok. yet others have been in profit quickly then i get trampled. sorry for rambling on. trying to communicate what ive learned.

as i see it -> maths is useful but it cant be the end of the story. markets are organic and they are saying a lot. this is where theory and practice will merge or collide.

dont make the assumption that the market agrees with your maths.

just my 2cents.
I believe simple is best
Quoting costos
(aren't casino winning edges pretty small, too?)
They don't NEED to have a large edge, and in fact that would work against them. Who the fuck wants to play a game they intuitively see/feel/know they can never possibly beat? Make it seem fairer = more players playing.

In reality casino's don't even need an edge; They can run a 50/50 game and still make money... it's called Risk of Ruin, and the casino's have their edge there, and not in the game mechanics themselves. As long as they have more capital than the individual players they will always win in the long run when players eventually bust themselves out through poor betting.

Of course, there will always be lucky players who have streaks and can make a dent in the casino's funds, at which point the casinos kindly invite those players to fuck off and go watch a magic show or get drunk at the bar... a form of stop loss for the casino, if you will, before the player can make bets that make the casino bosses balls twitch in fear. Negative edge games just make that less and less an issue.

In essence, you can lose even if you have an edge if your counterpart can ride your wins long enough for you to hit a losing streak that bankrupts you. The more of an edge you have, the larger the bankroll they need to have, and vice versa.

tl;dr: Casinos only need a small edge because most players will bust themselves out eventually without being a risk to the bank, and that small edge makes players feel smart when they get a win, as though they found a loophole in the matrix and are now going to be rich, without it being so obvious that the game is aggresively unbeatable like a larger edge would intuitively reveal to all but the dumbest of potatos. This is the same for FOREX muppets playing vidya games in MT4/5 thinking their 0.1 lot makes it any further into the market than the brokers 15yr old win3.1 machine that isn't even connected to an upstream trading firm and merely receives quotes to onforward to customers platforms..
Quoting nubcake
{quote} They don't NEED to have a large edge, and in fact that would work against them. Who the fuck wants to play a game they intuitively see/feel/know they can never possibly beat? Make it seem fairer = more players playing. In reality casino's don't even need an edge; They can run a 50/50 game and still make money... it's called Risk of Ruin, and the casino's have their edge there, and not in the game mechanics themselves. As long as they have more capital than the individual players they will always win in the long run when players eventually...
-> if youre selective enough you wont have to deal with this problem. this applies to evry aspect of trading. funny enough real life is the same.
I believe simple is best
Quoting ArnoldPike
{quote} -> if youre selective enough you wont have to deal with this problem. this applies to evry aspect of trading. funny enough real life is the same.
What exactly are you trying to say here? That if you have a winning system then you'll win? Seems, mostly, self-evident. That's called having an edge.

There's no need for all the win rate * risk vs reward talk... an edge is an edge, and a lack of one is typical.

Maybe I misunderstand your post.
Quoting nubcake
{quote} What exactly are you trying to say here? That if you have a winning system then you'll win? Seems, mostly, self-evident. That's called having an edge. There's no need for all the win rate * risk vs reward talk... an edge is an edge, and a lack of one is typical. Maybe I misunderstand your post.
anyone who has truthfully performed a coin toss exercise (not for trading but as a standalone exercise only) will know that the coin only does 2 things - heads or tails coz it lands on your hand when you catch it and the point is for it to land flat. but the coin is not tossing itself. it has no conscious memory of its behavior. as i see it its the same for people. i paid no admission fee to learn how to trade. or paid for textbooks, so i conclude i am not at school. so i have to use a different way to see whats going on. to me, seeing a trading opportunity is like buying a car. if you dont educate your mind good enough then youll fail to see anything significant. an edge is just a word. all im saying. %'s are just an idea, like using an indie or not. everytime ive tried to map the market i trade i learn something. and everytime i ignore it i lose money. so if a person ignores the markets idea of the rudimentary stuff then what good are words and maths? thats all i mean. ive read book after book and too many different words and 'right ways'. so i took the advice of someone who said - map your market. so i did. and i saw that the market really speaks about what can be done and when and how to do it. and yeah then you have to make sure your broker is doing their job. but i fear many people wont do this coz they love the pursuit not the achievements.

the idea of a person performing their own 100 trade challenge is a fantastic idea. i bet much could be learned in doing it.
I believe simple is best
Quoting ArnoldPike
{quote} anyone who has truthfully performed a coin toss exercise (not for trading but as a standalone exercise only) will know that the coin only does 2 things - heads or tails coz it lands on your hand when you catch it and the point is for it to land flat. but the coin is not tossing itself. it has no conscious memory of its behavior. as i see it its the same for people. i paid no admission fee to learn how to trade. or paid for textbooks, so i conclude i am not at school. so i have to use a different way to see whats going on. to me, seeing a...
k
0 traders viewing now