Confused! I know what this thread is about and so do you. You have spent hours naysaying the idea of a 1:1 R:R. Now all of a sudden you have changed your tune. I have debated with people like you. After they realize they may not be entirely correct they flip the debate. as if to say "Oh that's what you were saying"
You say answer my questions. Your questions are obsolete to the thread.
You said in a nutshell that i am an idiot for advocating a 1:1 RR. Well in that case a lot of us are idiots.
There have been several posters that have also identified your flaw in thinking. I am one of several posters that had questioned your statements about a 1:1 R:R. Matter of fact it's overwhelming how many people seem to agree that there is nothing wrong with 1:1 R:R. You seem to be busy replying to all the folks who disagree. You will be here forever!
Seems like you compromised with 2+2 = 4. He has said the same thing as me.
For your information 25% to 30% monthly compounded on your new balance is 1400% - 2400 % a year. do the math. I claimed to look for 2000%.
The contest. Whatever! I was just trying to emphasize that i can trade a lopsided risk reward and still achieve high profits. Even if you won the contest i would have still been able to prove that the R:R is irrelevant.
You have several requotes of mine that state i use a 1:1 RR. Which 90% of the time I do. Then you post a statement where i had mentioned. I'm not stuck at a 1:1. I'm not stuck I do intervene under certain circumstances. I do not see why that would not mean I am not a 1:1 RR trader. I am but with condition control. That still qualifies me as a 1:1 R:R trader. If 90% of my trades end closed as a 1:1 Trader i think that qualifies.
You say answer my questions. Your questions are obsolete to the thread.
You said in a nutshell that i am an idiot for advocating a 1:1 RR. Well in that case a lot of us are idiots.
There have been several posters that have also identified your flaw in thinking. I am one of several posters that had questioned your statements about a 1:1 R:R. Matter of fact it's overwhelming how many people seem to agree that there is nothing wrong with 1:1 R:R. You seem to be busy replying to all the folks who disagree. You will be here forever!
Seems like you compromised with 2+2 = 4. He has said the same thing as me.
For your information 25% to 30% monthly compounded on your new balance is 1400% - 2400 % a year. do the math. I claimed to look for 2000%.
The contest. Whatever! I was just trying to emphasize that i can trade a lopsided risk reward and still achieve high profits. Even if you won the contest i would have still been able to prove that the R:R is irrelevant.
You have several requotes of mine that state i use a 1:1 RR. Which 90% of the time I do. Then you post a statement where i had mentioned. I'm not stuck at a 1:1. I'm not stuck I do intervene under certain circumstances. I do not see why that would not mean I am not a 1:1 RR trader. I am but with condition control. That still qualifies me as a 1:1 R:R trader. If 90% of my trades end closed as a 1:1 Trader i think that qualifies.
My trades are 100% profitable 65% of the time!