Search results

Please, don't keep making the same mistake in public. I think you may have misunderstood what we're discussing and you might think that the 2% rule means that you calculate what you can afford to lose (comprising 2% of your account) and then set a stop that is a random number of pips or points...

I don't know about this and I'm not qualified to say, not being a day-trader, whether they should use it or not. However, reading what Alex Elder wrote its clear that he did not intend the rule to be used by day-traders.

Mate, look, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive but you speak as if they are. In fact they are complementary. Surely we don't have to go over the definition of the 2% rule? Especially when we both agree that the entry-stop distance should be derived by TA or volatility/range, NOT...

The 2% rule talks about risk to account capital, there's nothing to say the distance from entry to stop cannot be volatility/range based.

What would a better rule be?

Then is it better to have an unknown and unlimited risk?

Well, if you didn't like the ideas of an "Ignores" league table, well, you could Ignore it....

But I like the idea. It seems helpful if there was a score table showing how many times a member is being ignored and a summary of reasons for this.

Bearing in mind it was suggested 2% of account capital risked per trade. His aim was a low enough number that even multiple consecutive losses would not drastically damage an account. But on the face of it, isn't it so practical to have a maximum and known capital risk on going into a trade?

This comes from Dr. Alex Elder ("Come into my trading room: a complete guide to trading": 2002). It certainly wasn't aimed at day-traders.

Oh my god. I'm quite disarmed.

Cocky people generally are not helpful souls, they rub me up the wrong way. And they may even be more interested in winning an argument than being trustworthy. We will see.

I'm thinking of ignoring TDMA. He asks who is an accredited trader on this site. This clearly makes a difference to him so the implication is he will go on to treat non-accredited traders less favourably or ignore them altogether. Maybe he has a positive reason for asking this - we'll soon know.

I am not. Why do you ask?

50-50 sounds OK. But, only 50-50? Maybe, given the inherent upward bias of stock indices 50-50 isn't so good?

Thank you and Xela both so much. I thought it was me alone who loves Alan Farley's style but hates his writing.

No, not the high of the pole, the upper boundary of the flag - this will often be lower than the high of the pole. Same goes for a pennant. Have a look at ThePatternsite.com for a summary of these patterns and trading them. If you're aggressive, you wouldn't wait for the break-out through the...

This is surely not an indicator problem. Future price behaviour is only going to be indicated by the just-completed behaviour of price itself. So, in a bull flag, upward resumption of price movement is only confirmed by price movement upwards breaking out of the upper flag boundary. Of course...

If he can still do and understand and enjoy the things that give him pleasure I wish him only the best.

What's the point of continuing to live if you're physically and/or mentally unable to obtain any pleasure out of life?