I figured that would get your attention, but I didn't intend to get anyone so mad.
In any case, I don't think I made a mistake, so I'm not going to admit that. But please let me clarify my opinions. You actually kind of helped to stress my point.
First, the consistent model for success that I have seen is moderate win percentage with high profit to loss ratios.
I was trying to point out that we seem to be after a different model for success - high win percentage. I've never seen that before, and just because I haven't posted here a zillion times doesn't mean that I don't visit here often and attempt to learn. I don't post unless I feel that I have something to contribute. So what do I believe my contribution was on my post:
1. The ideas being developed/discussed in this thread are very powerful. So powerful, in fact, that I was able to devise a simple mechanical system that seems to work. Unbelievable!
2. I post this fact because it should inspire others to continue to work on their own ideas.
3. I am not so naive as to think that my simple system is real without first forward testing it. It seems too good to be true. It is my strong opinion that backtesting can only go so far.
And just for clarification, I am seeking a mechanical system. My personality doesn't match well with systems that involve a lot of discretion in trading. Most of what the folks here are doing involves a lot of discretion.
If I can learn some of this, I'll become a better trader.
PiPr Pro - Please don't misunderstand my intent. I respect and appreciate your contributions to this thread. But the post I quoted made it seem like this is easy. It's not
In any case, I don't think I made a mistake, so I'm not going to admit that. But please let me clarify my opinions. You actually kind of helped to stress my point.
First, the consistent model for success that I have seen is moderate win percentage with high profit to loss ratios.
I was trying to point out that we seem to be after a different model for success - high win percentage. I've never seen that before, and just because I haven't posted here a zillion times doesn't mean that I don't visit here often and attempt to learn. I don't post unless I feel that I have something to contribute. So what do I believe my contribution was on my post:
1. The ideas being developed/discussed in this thread are very powerful. So powerful, in fact, that I was able to devise a simple mechanical system that seems to work. Unbelievable!
2. I post this fact because it should inspire others to continue to work on their own ideas.
3. I am not so naive as to think that my simple system is real without first forward testing it. It seems too good to be true. It is my strong opinion that backtesting can only go so far.
And just for clarification, I am seeking a mechanical system. My personality doesn't match well with systems that involve a lot of discretion in trading. Most of what the folks here are doing involves a lot of discretion.
If I can learn some of this, I'll become a better trader.
PiPr Pro - Please don't misunderstand my intent. I respect and appreciate your contributions to this thread. But the post I quoted made it seem like this is easy. It's not
It is traderism;
