Per your logic, last Friday market didn't go up.
Because it was sometimes on the day going down for a short while.
Can one strategy work "most of the time" in any market condition?
- Thread starter joeltrades
- Start date
Per your logic, last Friday market didn't go up.
Because it was sometimes on the day going down for a short while.
I think for this to be true, there needs to be a "loose" definition of what the strategy is. For example, it cant just be a long only strategy. Furthermore, it has to be a strategy that allows for switching directions if the original trade idea is invalidated. (ie, when you lose on longs, you have a reason to go short and recoup the losses)Can one strategy work "most of the time" in any market condition?
Yes.
But all of this can fall into one strategy, by my definition. Of course, this could just more so mean a trader trading manually. If you're to talk an automated strategy that just looks for one type of trade, then I can see how this might sometimes not work for a few months but every now and then its a hit. So with something like this, you would ideally need multiple strategies running at the same time to balance average out the results.
I disagree. The mentor I started trading with told me to look for patterns and instances where the market behaved a certain way, "MOST OF THE TIME". Without getting into the excruciating details, there are definitely intra-day patterns that happen "most of the time". So if one can employ a strategy around that pattern, the strat should work most of the time.
Can one strategy work "most of the time" in any market condition?
Isn't this like asking: "Can drawing to an inside-straight work "most of the time" in any poker hands?
Let's think this through with common sense.
Isn't this like asking: "Can drawing to an inside-straight work "most of the time" in any poker hands?
Let's think this through with common sense.
Except for one thing. Poker and trading are mutually exclusive. (ON, NTSA) hehe
The way I analyze time, an investment that is worth less now than when you bought it 10 years ago is not a short while.
You are simply incapable of a sound logic.
People simply have misconcept.
They think if you do trend following, you should always do it, no matter if there is a trend.Otherwise you are not trading one strategy.
If my strategy says when I have a trend signal, I enter position.When I have a trend end signal, or I have no trend signal, I exit. Is this one strategy or two different strategy?
In your example, when board has straight draw possibility, I play straight draw.
If there is no straight draw, I don't play straight draw. People are saying you are not playing one strategy. You should always play straight draw no matter if board has a straight draw.
.
.
.
My strategy says market is very likely to be at the start of a new up trend.
If Monday market goes up, my strategy will enter a long position. Monday' low is my stop point. That means as long as Monday low holds, up trend holds.
As the up trend continue, stop will move up,and stop loss become stop profit.
For the previous up trend, my strategy exited on 8|13|2021.
Entry and exit points is very important parts of my strategy.
Entry at the start of a trend.
Exit at broken or finish of a trend.
So are people thinking my strategy is one strategy or two?
If Monday market goes up, my strategy will enter a long position. Monday' low is my stop point. That means as long as Monday low holds, up trend holds.
As the up trend continue, stop will move up,and stop loss become stop profit.
For the previous up trend, my strategy exited on 8|13|2021.
Entry and exit points is very important parts of my strategy.
Entry at the start of a trend.
Exit at broken or finish of a trend.
So are people thinking my strategy is one strategy or two?
Last edited: