10% success rate is better than 60% success rate?

[i am nobody]

Because you failed to find the right answer?

For the statement from your first posting there is no correct answer or every answer is correct. But these answers will be as meaningless as your statement. For the simple reason that the statement misses essentail parts before it can be answered. 10% or 60% success rate does not say anything.
I presume you don't understand what I mean.

 

[i am nobody]

But been only a hobbyist trader because my real profession has been a software developer all the time

Confirms that you are not a good trader, because if you were you would be trading and take programming as a hobby. But you do just the opposite.

 

[botpro]

Confirms that you are not a good trader, because if you were you would be trading and take programming as a hobby. But you do just the opposite.

Yes, I finally came exactly to the same conclusion... ;-)
Indeed, I should have done that step much earlier... ;-(

 

[botpro]

For the statement from your first posting there is no correct answer or every answer is correct. But these answers will be as meaningless as your statement. For the simple reason that the statement misses essentail parts before it can be answered. 10% or 60% success rate does not say anything.
I presume you don't understand what I mean.

Hmm. I tend to disagree because the case is absolutely clear and conclusive.

Imagine this example:
There is a robot (or an assistant) whom you can ask questions, like how the weather will be tomorrow.
You made some notes (statistics) and discovered that this silly thing knows the correct answer
only in 10% of the cases, in all the other 90% of the cases he is dumb wrong.

So, you can turn that consistent stupidness of that robot into your own advantage by simply assuming that the opposite of his answer will be true...

Got the trick now? ;-)

And what does this mean for strategy developers?
If you developed and tested many strategies then you should take into consideration not only
the best performers, but also the worst performers!
You just need to inverse (ie. negate) the worst performers, and suddenly you have turned a worst performer to a top-performer! Maths helps here...
This knowledge is IMO very useful...

IMO another good example is this one:
You make a list of the historical performances of stocks as an indicator for long/short trading.
Then you sort the list. On top are the best performers, and on the bottom of the list are the worst performers.
Top performers means going long the stock.
The worst performers can as well be useful for you: one should go short with these stocks as they are the best for this direction...
Just a simplified example...

 

[K-Pia]

It's better not to be stupid.
As you've shown you are.

I am thirsty,
Does 0,6L of water is better than 0,1L ?
Don't need to be a super mammal to know that.

Of course. We assume nothing else.
Which is useless in practice.
We could be wrong.

The less information,
The more probable you're wrong.

Luckily your subconscious handles more complex problems.

 

[botpro]

Luckily your subconscious handles more complex problems.

You can be assured it does ;-)

 

[i am nobody]

Got the trick now? ;-)

You apparently already missed the basics of trading.
10% right can generate 1 million profit or 1 million losses.
60% right can also generate 1 million profit or 1 million losses.
You only speak about 10% and 60% without mentioning sizes of profit and losses.
Besides of the 10% and the 60% you need also the average profit or loss per trade. But you don't speak about it.
So if the 10% generate 1 million profit and the 60% generate 10 cents of losses you should choose for the 10%. And vice versa.
Got the trick now?
If not go back to start and read again.

 

[botpro]

You apparently already missed the basics of trading.
10% right can generate 1 million profit or 1 million losses.
60% right can also generate 1 million profit or 1 million losses.
You only speak about 10% and 60% without mentioning sizes of profit and losses.
Besides of the 10% and the 60% you need also the average profit or loss per trade. But you don't speak about it.
So if the 10% generate 1 million profit and the 60% generate 10 cents of losses you should choose for the 10%. And vice versa.
Got the trick now?
If not go back to start and read again.

Hmmm.... I'm speechless and have no comments.... ;-) ROTFL!

Ok, just this hint:
It is not about the next one single and final trade...
And the given probabilities are about predicting the market direction; they are not payouts...

 

[i am nobody]

Yes, I finally came exactly to the same conclusion... ;-)
Indeed, I should have done that step much earlier... ;-(

If you need so much time to realize such an obvious and simple thing, you will surely miss the qualifications for becoming a good trader too. You should stop trading, or trying to trade.
But you don't know that yet. You will say in a few years:Indeed, I should have done that step much earlier... ;-
History repeats itself.

"Ich schaffe das." will not help you.

 

[botpro]

If you need so much time to realize such an obvious and simple thing, you will surely miss the qualifications for becoming a good trader too. You should stop trading, or trying to trade.
But you don't know that yet. You will say in a few years:Indeed, I should have done that step much earlier... ;-
History repeats itself.

"Ich schaffe das." will not help you.

Some non-trading jobs get paid not that bad... ;-)
But true, having a job at the stock exchange is much better ;-)
I'll make a brand new start of it...