No averaging down,
a few comments:
1) stop adding below 50% (if there are no major trend pivots). Obviously, subjective rule, but then again, thats the trick of the method in the first place to know when the trend is still valid.
2)Yes I agree with most positions will be on small size and the stop outs could be on large size. You are 100% right here and this is why I havn't implemented the method before.
I imagine a mean reversion PA trader would trade in the style I mentioned as I don't see another logical way to do so. How many reversals are created without some form of retest after all (M,W, IHS, HS).
a few comments:
1) stop adding below 50% (if there are no major trend pivots). Obviously, subjective rule, but then again, thats the trick of the method in the first place to know when the trend is still valid.
2)Yes I agree with most positions will be on small size and the stop outs could be on large size. You are 100% right here and this is why I havn't implemented the method before.
I imagine a mean reversion PA trader would trade in the style I mentioned as I don't see another logical way to do so. How many reversals are created without some form of retest after all (M,W, IHS, HS).
Quote from noaveragingdown:
There's a a fundamental flaw with your concept.
You need strong retracements that end up resuming the trend to make good money. Yet strong retracements might increase chances of trend reversals as the strongest of trends do light pullbacks.
The concept of making money with a light position and getting stopped out on a full position is also not very inviting and this is something very possible with your suggestion.
I'm not saying you can't make it work, but the above should be taken into consideration, even with good accuracy, you don't really know how much your winning positions will carry in terms of size yet you do know it's full size on the losers this presents a problem when calculating expectancy.
Good luck with the project and best of trading to you.
NAD