CL Journal

themickey said:
It's a stupid argument.
More...

If it was a stupid argument I wouldn't be taking part in debating it.

Bottom line, if you have a consistently high win method you could get away with targets being smaller than SLs, if you don't & most traders can not sustain a high win rate, then your targets have to be larger than stops used, as if not it will be 'game over'. Buy1Sell2 does not have a high win method, so trailing stops & reducing reward in relation to stop level makes 0 mathematical sense. There's nothing to discuss really, it's simple probability.

Rational that trailing will increase profitability of a trade is flawed logic, as you could simply be shaken out and price will continue onwards in anticipated direction. I always advocate having a target, not according to future developments of a trend, but a hard target which normally rests near next weighted support or resistance zone.
 
Last edited:
JSSPMK said:
...

Rational that trailing will increase profitability of a trade is flawed logic, as you could simply be shaken out and price will continue onwards in anticipated direction. I always advocate having a target, not according to future developments of a trend, but a hard target which normally rests near next weighted support or resistance zone.
More...

And I have seen COUNTLESS times where a trailing stop would have been a lot more profitable than a hard target. Cue the NQ yesterday.
 
Overnight said:
And I have seen COUNTLESS times where a trailing stop would have been a lot more profitable than a hard target. Cue the NQ yesterday.
More...

In a world where traders do not incur losing trades this will work long term, otherwise not. Profitability doesn't just depend on win/loss, it depends on reward/risk too.
 
If your SL is 2 units and target is 4, but due to trailing before reward has been reached you settle for an average of 1 unit reward, then you need to maintain a 67% win rate to break even before applying operating costs. Can you maintain win rate above 67%? The vast majority of posters on ET and other portals struggle to maintain win rate above 50%.

That's why I don't adhere to 'profit is profit' mentality, tiny profits will always be wiped out by losing trades, the problem is they don't just wipe out profits, they reduce your trading capital.

The main reason so many would agree with you is down to fear of a loss so they find comfort in early settlements, it is only when you realise that losses are part of 'the game' and you build your strategy around acceptance of the latter you'd be on your way to maintaining profitability.

It helps to think - what if my trading decisions will have probability of a coin toss? Would you settle for reward smaller or equal to your loss? I wouldn't. I'd want to have reward to be a multiple of my loss. I risk 1 to gain 3 on average.

If you trail after your target has been reached that's absolutely fine.
 
Last edited:
JSSPMK said:
If your SL is 2 units and target is 4, but due to trailing before reward has been reached you settle for an average of 1 unit reward, then you need to maintain a 67% win rate to break even before applying operating costs. Can you maintain win rate above 67%? The vast majority of posters on ET and other portals struggle to maintain win rate above 50%.

That's why I don't adhere to 'profit is profit' mentality, tiny profits will always be wiped out by losing trades, the problem is they don't just wipe out profits, they reduce your trading capital.

The main reason so many would agree with you is down to fear of a loss so they find comfort in early settlements, it is only when you realise that losses are part of 'the game' and you build your strategy around acceptance of the latter you'd be on your way to maintaining profitability.

It helps to think - what if my trading decisions will have probability of a coin toss? Would you settle for reward smaller or equal to your loss? I wouldn't. I'd want to have reward to be a multiple of my loss. I risk 1 to gain 3 on average.

If you trail after your target has been reached that's absolutely fine.
More...
You finished now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top