DislikedIt seems like any and all strategies that feature any kind of doubled re-entries on losing positions is called Martingale. This is NOT Martingale. You can call it "modified Martingale", "limited Martingale" or something similar. But it's better not to call it Martingale at all, because the term has been associated with indefinite doubling of position size. The bad reputation of Martingale comes exactly from this doubling ad infinitum, which of course can't be sustained. If there is a hard stop loss in place, then it's NOT Martingale.Ignored

*stopped martingale*. It fails even faster than a non-stopped martingale because the loss can never be recovered (see my post above). Actually any practical martingale is necessarily a stopped martingale since nobody owns an infinite amount of money (what would be the point of martingaling in such a case?). Therefore it is a martingale as usual.

Considering that a sequence of N losers followed by one winner is a winning trade is the main fallacy of the martingale. People focus on the fact that they will win almost surely. They just don't consider WHAT they win. What they win is the expectation of their gambling, that is 0 minus trading cost for any edgeless method.

Any method with a positive edge will generate arbitrarily more money with a fixed percent MM than a martingale.

No greed. No fear. Just maths.