you do not have to catch the exact high but you have to know that the high is in place: for that swing
am i the only one or are there others who find it easier to pick tops than bottoms
- Thread starter padutrader
- Start date
you do not have to catch the exact high but you have to know that the high is in place: for that swing
Leverage turns 50/50 into a losing game, cause you take a few losses in a row then your trading with less so can't make it back, take a few wins then your trading with more so the loss string hits you harder.
Math's is fun
unless your a trader then it's always against you.Meat inbetween sounds good, but also issue, as you'll go long after a down move, just as it starts going up, if a down move is still in play then you've bought counter trend and you'll lose.
And your SL has to be pretty much under the previous low, which if Downtrend will take out, just to allow for a double bottom and reverse.
Each individual trade is 50/50! But the size of your loss vs the size of your profit determines how long you stay in the game!
No you can influence both sides of that equation, 80% win rate is acheivable but the same as 80% lose rate is also
I agree but each individual trade is 50/50! Each trade is unique!i the chance of something happening could be greater but uncertainty is realityNo you can influence both sides of that equation, 80% win rate is acheivable but the same as 80% lose rate is also
Charles Darwin (1809–1882) said, "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
Can't possibly keep up with the bad theories, pseudo-science, and mutual masturbation going on in this thread, but here's the thing which *started* to be addressed early on, but has gotten lost in the sauce as the thread has drifted further from reality:
Padu, you posed "Why are tops easier to call than bottoms?" during an eleven year bull market. Absent any thoughts about the economy, earnings seasons, trade, etc, there have been more tops to call than in the last 100 years. What's more is, since the 2016 U.S. elections, many tops, but especially many bottoms, have {now} been non-market driven events -- and thereby much harder {read: impossible} to 'call'.
What you have observed is nothing more than a corollary to "Everyone's a genius in a bull market."
Y'all have fun now. I'm out.
Can't possibly keep up with the bad theories, pseudo-science, and mutual masturbation going on in this thread, but here's the thing which *started* to be addressed early on, but has gotten lost in the sauce as the thread has drifted further from reality:
Padu, you posed "Why are tops easier to call than bottoms?" during an eleven year bull market. Absent any thoughts about the economy, earnings seasons, trade, etc, there have been more tops to call than in the last 100 years. What's more is, since the 2016 U.S. elections, many tops, but especially many bottoms, have {now} been non-market driven events -- and thereby much harder {read: impossible} to 'call'.
What you have observed is nothing more than a corollary to "Everyone's a genius in a bull market."
Y'all have fun now. I'm out.
Last edited:
A smart trader always takes in consideration that he should be able to continue trading the same size after a XX% drawdown. Drawdowns are part of trading, and always happen. So the problem you described will never happen. It happens with stupid or overleveraged people (not traders).
So the statement "lose 50% and you have to make 100% again" is not valid for a smart and responsible trader. You should always incorporate some extra money, just in case...
i am a day trader in forex where one day is equal to four NYSE days.
so i am talking about swing tops and bottoms