Search results

interesting thought process I would say the strategy should beat random entry by 75% time at least to give me confidence in the strategy what are your results ?

difficult to tell as we don't have a database where all traders report their expectancy.

currently I am trading a system with expectancy range 0.35 to 0.5 so 0.47 is not bad but you have to deal with drawdown sometime. Of course if you can come of with better expectancy then grt. Me too looking to improve my number but not easy.

@mdszj the avg win and avg loss always need to be reward to risk ratio where risk needs to be made as 1 and then you calculate so in your case 3.73 : 2.04 = 1.83 : 1 now using these 1.83*0.52 -1 *0.48 =0.47

hey I just noticed your calculation is wrong expectancy is 0.47 and not 0.95 for this data 52% win 48% loss avg win 3.74% avg loss 2.04% Now this makes sense and yes you will have draw downs. Regardless every system will have draw downs and streak of loosers. Money management is the only way...

0.95 expectancy is very good. It should not have big draw down. The average win and avg loss might be off. any change in there there will be a big change in expectancy. You need to divide the data in to many parts and calculate expectancy and other metrics independently and then compare with...

1:2.5 risk to reward and 36% winner your expectancy is 0.26 not that great...but average as you are day trading your trade frequency will be high which will help you will definitely make money in the long run but you will have huge pnl swing .... you need some backup money to recover in case...

what is your average risk to reward per trade ?

how about a dislike/disagree button first ???

u can't calculate this with one day worth of trades ...it is meaningless u need big enough sample size ... may be take all trades in last 6 months calculate the number of winners and loosers and thus find the winner percetage and then calculate avreage winner = summation of winner /number of...

What you say is disadvantage may be a non issue to somebody. One of the major problems in we humans is we tend to generalize too much. I have been guilty of the same in the past. In the second example there is room for improvement in win percentage from 40% to say 50% creating a massive...

as the range is 70 to 90 I will take average 80% winner risk to reward 1:2 your expectancy is ((80*2) - (20 *1))/100 = 1.4 this system is no better than a system say 40% win with risk to reward 1:5 expectancy 1.4 so you need not necessarily have high win rate. you can arrive at the...

this is vague ..give me concrete numbers so that I can make sense of this comment ?? like.. 75% win rate with Risk to Reward 1:1 or 80% win rate with Risk to Reward 1:0.5

Is this a new idea you are working with ? or Is this something that you have been working for a while ? if yes how is your result so far? If I remember correctly yes my result was breakevenish for this. The idea definitely had some potential wish you luck on cracking this one.

@tomorton I have used the exact same idea years ago and then discarded it as you can see on paper it looks very good ...but you have to capture 2 grids before becoming profitable.. As the entry condition does not matter the system depends on continuous price trend without retracement by 1g...

for swing trader it is less than 2 or 1 percent but for intraday trader it is much higher ..but I think 30% is max .. anything more is not sustainable

u have been telling the same thing again again in various posts .... but you never talk about risk reward ratio... a low probability trade always has to have high reward to risk ratio... Similarly a high probability trade generally comes with low reward to risk ratio. if you have both winning...

I agree with others that the TA system should be same on all TFs theoretically. however there is some difference i.e impact cost and execution cost. Because the number of trades is going to be significantly higher these costs distorts the overall system.In other words these cost nullifies a...

yes much more leverage without paying interest to broker ... also no dependency on stocks available to borrow for shorting.. no risk of getting your short stocks called also 23 hours trading futures single market instead of gazillion exchanges & dark pools... hopefully cash settled as well so...

they are yet to catch steam ... I thought may be CME or ICE will do it better as they have better experience