just some thoughts.
playing around with different filters it basically boils down to this:
As I mentioned in some posts much earlier my feeling about too much filtering seems to get more and more confirmed.
I know we all strive to get close to 100% success rate.
But in fact that might not be the most profitable thing to do.
1. imaging we could filter all bad trades so that only good once are entered
POSITIVE would be: we could place all our money on such a trade
NEGATIVE: there would be properly not many trades and our TP would be just a few PIPs (but ith a great value)
(I doubt that we can do that 100% and get still a meaningful number of trades).
2. as we properly do not get a guaranteed 100% success rate we might go for a very close to 100% (say 95-98%) one.
Actually I think this is with filtering possible: but the problem is that we might filter out so many trades that we are still left with just a couple and as we are having not a 100% success rate - one loser might wipe out much of our profit.
3. we might not filter out so many trades - which leaves us with much more looser but also more winners (hopefully).
I have seen all of such 3 option (well just for a short time for 100% ;-)
The real art is to find the best overall ration.
If one does not filter - even if the overall ration might be successful - the problem will remain that we get many winners but also many looser - which makes it difficult to commit a good amount of money per trade as one must expect a couple of looser in a row.
Trying too much filtering is still enticing (graving for risk free trading): The problem is: is there ever a chance of being 100% sure (which to my understanding is not)
So the real aim - I would suggest is to follow what produces the most profit over a good amount of time. (taking into account a reasonable risk)
MJ
playing around with different filters it basically boils down to this:
As I mentioned in some posts much earlier my feeling about too much filtering seems to get more and more confirmed.
I know we all strive to get close to 100% success rate.
But in fact that might not be the most profitable thing to do.
1. imaging we could filter all bad trades so that only good once are entered
POSITIVE would be: we could place all our money on such a trade
NEGATIVE: there would be properly not many trades and our TP would be just a few PIPs (but ith a great value)
(I doubt that we can do that 100% and get still a meaningful number of trades).
2. as we properly do not get a guaranteed 100% success rate we might go for a very close to 100% (say 95-98%) one.
Actually I think this is with filtering possible: but the problem is that we might filter out so many trades that we are still left with just a couple and as we are having not a 100% success rate - one loser might wipe out much of our profit.
3. we might not filter out so many trades - which leaves us with much more looser but also more winners (hopefully).
I have seen all of such 3 option (well just for a short time for 100% ;-)
The real art is to find the best overall ration.
If one does not filter - even if the overall ration might be successful - the problem will remain that we get many winners but also many looser - which makes it difficult to commit a good amount of money per trade as one must expect a couple of looser in a row.
Trying too much filtering is still enticing (graving for risk free trading): The problem is: is there ever a chance of being 100% sure (which to my understanding is not)
So the real aim - I would suggest is to follow what produces the most profit over a good amount of time. (taking into account a reasonable risk)
MJ
__Thanks__ MJ