When you’re trading with a strong trend, you naturally get a wider margin of error — even a less‑than‑perfect entry can still work out if your stop‑loss is placed correctly (assuming you use one).
But when you’re trading against the trend, it’s the complete opposite: the margin for error shrinks dramatically, and both your entry and your stop‑loss (if used), placement must be far more precise.
I’ve been fortunate to meet (virtually) some exceptional forex traders with over 40 years of experience each. What’s fascinating is that they often enter trades in places that look almost random at first glance (often reflecting a cat walking across the keyboard), yet their approach still works. From what I’ve observed, they close a very high percentage of their trades in profit while letting the remaining trades ride out. They manage multiple positions at once and continuously lock in gains, generating enough realized profit to offset the trades they’re still carrying — and still end up net positive.
I mention this because, on the occasions when price keeps moving against me, I apply a similar idea: I continue to buy or sell in line with my bias and close those new positions in profit as price pulls back. I repeat this cycle until price eventually returns to my original levels, allowing me to close the remaining trades at break‑even, a small profit, or even a small loss.
Every trader also needs an edge. Mine is rooted in solid mathematics and statistical probability. The counter‑trend trading I use isn’t KoF; I work with a fixed target price that has at least an 80% probability of being reached.
What I’m really trying to express very poorly, is that the exact entry price matters far less than how the trade is managed. A wide range of entries can work when the management is sound. And ultimately, “trend” itself is relative — it depends entirely on the granularity of the chart you’re looking at.
I do lose trades — everyone does — but the overall result remains net positive because a high percentage of my trades close in profit. The management, not the perfect entry, is what makes the difference.
It has taken many years to develop this way of thinking.
But when you’re trading against the trend, it’s the complete opposite: the margin for error shrinks dramatically, and both your entry and your stop‑loss (if used), placement must be far more precise.
I’ve been fortunate to meet (virtually) some exceptional forex traders with over 40 years of experience each. What’s fascinating is that they often enter trades in places that look almost random at first glance (often reflecting a cat walking across the keyboard), yet their approach still works. From what I’ve observed, they close a very high percentage of their trades in profit while letting the remaining trades ride out. They manage multiple positions at once and continuously lock in gains, generating enough realized profit to offset the trades they’re still carrying — and still end up net positive.
I mention this because, on the occasions when price keeps moving against me, I apply a similar idea: I continue to buy or sell in line with my bias and close those new positions in profit as price pulls back. I repeat this cycle until price eventually returns to my original levels, allowing me to close the remaining trades at break‑even, a small profit, or even a small loss.
Every trader also needs an edge. Mine is rooted in solid mathematics and statistical probability. The counter‑trend trading I use isn’t KoF; I work with a fixed target price that has at least an 80% probability of being reached.
What I’m really trying to express very poorly, is that the exact entry price matters far less than how the trade is managed. A wide range of entries can work when the management is sound. And ultimately, “trend” itself is relative — it depends entirely on the granularity of the chart you’re looking at.
I do lose trades — everyone does — but the overall result remains net positive because a high percentage of my trades close in profit. The management, not the perfect entry, is what makes the difference.
It has taken many years to develop this way of thinking.
6
