Quote from CFerret:
90, 95, or even 99% failure rate is GREAT news for serious trader, simply because it's a clear proof that trading is a serious and very profitable business and as such, only few can grasp it well...
Quote from cabletrader:
I'm no psychologist but that's human nature I guess, it's more comfortable to blame the market/broker than accept responsibility, it always has to be someone else's fault. It also explains the resentment some people have for those who can succeed, they feel it reflects badly on them and their abilities.
Quote from cabletrader:
I replied to your post in a clear, coherent, and polite manner.
As I suspected, you cannot support your opinion with logic or reason otherwise you would have done so.
Here are the posts again in case you need them:
.
Quote from cabletrader:
I doubt you would recognize truth if it jumped up and bit you on your arse!
I don't suppose we can expect a coherent reply to the answers I gave you in that post? Care to try and justify the nonsense you wrote? No, I ddn't think so.
Quote from Ivanovich:
I was referring to this post - unless this is your example of "clear, coherent and polite".
Quote from rwk:
My bad... This is thread is part of the Forex Forum, and I neglected to make that distinction.
It is my impression that with forex it is as easy to go short as long. For that matter, isn't short USDJPY equivalent to long JPYUSD? The only difference is the base currency.
I believe financial futures work as well short as long too. With commodities though, it is possible to have shortages that tend to last longer than surpluses, so long strategies may work better especially for longer term traders. Stocks are a lot easier to short without the uptick rule, but there still must be borrowable shares. But I think the problems of shorting stocks profitably goes beyond the problem of executing the trade. I am primarily a stock trader, and I would like to find a good shorting strategy.
Quote from OddTrader:
LOL
Quote from cabletrader:
....quite obvious you're not using any stops whatsoever... - Obvious, how? Surely 5% risk means just that, 5% risk! Stops were used. Trading without protecting equity in some way is never a good idea.
Max drawdown and trade duration - 5%, and trades were open until they were closed, usually within a day but obviously no longer than a week.
Win rate suggests gambling - Win:lose is a recognized way of expressing, well, the win to lose ratio. What would you prefer wins to be called? Gains? Profitable trades? I'm here to please and will call them whatever you like.
Anyone remember Skalpz/Coinz - Yes, but how is that relevant?
I made the assumption [/B]
Quote from Ivanovich:
When you originally posted %5 risk on each trade, you didn't specify whether that meant each trade was no more than 5% of your equity, or whether you allowed the trade to go 5% into the negative, etc. You merely said "5% risk". Which is why I made the assumption that you did not use stops. I still find it difficult to believe (putting it lightly) that you had a 97% success rate with over 100 trades and you never went more than 5% down on any of your trades. I think there are many, many traders on this site who would agree.
As for the "win/loss" comment, I agree it's semantics. But most gamblers tend to refer to them as win/lose, where as most traders refer to it as "profit/loss".
Additionally, I brought up Coinz to illustrate a comparison as he would go long or short without stops, and his trades would go hundreds, sometimes thousands of pips into the negative, but he'd hold out waiting for them to come back. Eventually (sometimes a year or so later) they would, and he would call that a winning trade, not paying attention to the opportunity lost during that time or the risk associated with it. What you claimed sounded amazingly similar to that philosophy. Again, with your limited explanation (at that point) of your 5% risk.
Lastly, conversations like this are best done with explaining and debate, not insult. You reverted to insult, and then you did again with your last snide remark (which was an attempt to divert the conversation back again). This might be considered good form on forums such as Moneytech, old chap, but this is a pretty decent forex forum. I'd like to think we can refrain from such wastes of space among people who call themselves traders.