Search results

No, of course always being about break-even is not worth it. I understood your point from the start of this discussion: profit must be good enough to justify putting efforts into getting it. But this matter is complicated, includes nuances of every instrument etc. Even relatively small...

Yep. That's what I meant by consistent profits. Profits that overall steadily exceed losses in total amount.

About as easy as breaking even. See, it's about the averages and margin for statistical error.

No difference from 10 ticks in my view. :)

Matter of statistics. I really don't feel 3 is easier than 10. Both are almost b/e.

I wasn't referring to myself saying break-even is good. It would certainly be good for myself 9 years ago though...

No resistance. Just think 3 and 10 are about within the boundaries of randomness.

Ironically it doesn't seem like there's a big difference between 3 and 10... 100 as well. either you have a skill for that or you don't. In the second case chances are you lose. Total amount is of less importance. Consistent profits or consistent losses are two the most important concepts.

GC :) Appreciate the help. :)

From my current point of view I'd say 10 ticks a year in any futures contract I trade is probably an easy target. :)

Even without mistakes, there's a skill to acquire first... so your question is actually very difficult to answer and is very individual. Every successful trader would probably answer it differently and for struggling traders breaking even after commissions is already great result IMO.

I would say for "any idiot" even breaking even after commissions would be a success and not easy in the first years. Maybe it's just me being dumber than idiots of course. :D

I believe because they don't have an edge.

From point of view at the date of the journal or now? :p

That is true. As is true that most people never actually make ANY money (net) from trading.

I used incorrect term: meant daily average.

Depends on the instrument. In something like CL or GC you better perform well as they don't scale too much. In something like ES even 1 tick NET consistent daily can turn you into a big money manager.

Yep. Or that. Or both. :)

Ironically, the $ amount is of secondary importance. Knowing how to extract X ticks is the key. $ amount is achieved by simply scaling up in size while doing exactly the same.

Even more important: if one caps profits during good days, there may be not enough profits to cover losses and it turns profitable methodology into a losing one!