If there was a trading technique that was 90-100% always positive, how much would you give to learn

[Mtrader]

HOGWASH! Doesn't matter who the opposite party is. You bet one way, somebody else bets the opposite. At the time of the trade, both are convinced they are correct for doing so.... otherwise, they wouldn't take the trade.

But you still don't know how the winning rate of your opponent is. So your statement that you would never trade against a 90% winner cannot be checked, and that was your point. Your statement is wrong.
You trade because you THINK the odds are in your favor...., but in reality it can be completely different. Reality counts, not what you think. Because if what you think would count you would win every time. And that is not the case.

 

[Scataphagos]

But you still don't know how the winning rate of your opponent is. So your statement that you would never trade against a 90% winner cannot be checked, and that was your point. Your statement is wrong.

Once more and for the final time, let me say this... HOGWASH!! Every trading decision is independent... not reliant on any other. The buyer thinks he's right for buying. The seller believes he's right for selling. Otherwise, neither would act.

 

[Mtrader]

After all if there were such a thing as 90%, it would be eventually learned by the players and nobody would want to take the 10% side... and therefore, there would be no transactions.

How would somebody learn that his opponent is a 90% winning trader??? He cannot so there will be always transactions, no matter 90% or 10%. And both will think they will win.

The very profitable traders take the money from the losers. Although these losers want to be winners too. This proofs that high winning raters are taking money from the low winning raters.
So low winning traders take predefined losses without even knowing it, and thinking they have an equal chance.

 

[Scataphagos]

How would somebody learn that his opponent is a 90% winning trader??? He cannot so there will be always transactions, no matter 90% or 10%. And both will think they will win.

The very profitable traders take the money from the losers. Although these losers want to be winners too. This proofs that high winning raters are taking money from the low winning raters.
So low winning traders take predefined losses without even knowing it, and thinking they have an equal chance.

I give up. You are apparently too dense to get it. Like talking to my wife.

 

[Scataphagos]

There are tons of 90% systems. The problem is the 10% losses will put you on a stretcher.

Agree that "uncontrolled losses"... even if only the 10%'ers, will do you great harm. But "tons of 90% systems" is total HOGWASH!

 

[Scataphagos]

There are tons of 90% systems. The problem is the 10% losses will put you on a stretcher.

You can't prosper/survive in trading if you don't have a logical and disciplined mind. Your notion of "tons of 90% systems" is fancy and HOGWASH.

 

[zdreg]

Said without the infrastructure and massive team, you would never make a dime with it.

you hit on the definition of a true edge. you can explain it to someone else and whatever the reason may be ( it can be many things) they cannot duplicate it.

 

[Scataphagos]

I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade or dash anyone's hopes... but the notion of "90% win rate".. and whatever rationale supports that is pure BS. If some trader has any such thoughts, he's "fishing in a dry hole" and should look elsewhere.

Think about it logically. A "90% win rate" would be worth $BILLIONS to anyone who could trade size. If possible, no expense would be too great to discover and achieve it. Hire as many PhD's or computer geniuses as you can find... whatever the cost, worth it.

So how can any single trader presume to "figure it out" where others with $Billions at risk haven't?

I don't usually chime in on such threads... but this one sounds like a bunch of rookie players with high and false hopes which are destined to end in a heap of ashes.

However, there are correlations in the marketplace worth trading. Learn those and trade them... with stops. Regardless, there are no 90%-ers.

 

[minmike]

I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade or dash anyone's hopes... but the notion of "90% win rate".. and whatever rationale supports that is pure BS. If some trader has any such thoughts, he's "fishing in a dry hole" and should look elsewhere.

Think about it logically. A "90% win rate" would be worth $BILLIONS to anyone who could trade size. If possible, no expense would be too great to discover and achieve it. Hire as many PhD's or computer geniuses as you can find... whatever the cost, worth it.

So how can any single trader presume to "figure it out" where others with $Billions at risk haven't?

I don't usually chime in on such threads... but this one sounds like a bunch of rookie players with high and false hopes which are destined to end in a heap of ashes.

However, there are correlations in the marketplace worth trading. Learn those and trade them... with stops. Regardless, there are no 90%-ers.

90% win rate means nothing, but is doable. Hell selling small out of the money options wins 95-98% of the time. The disaster that ensues the remaining 2.5% of the time is why it isn't a good idea.

 

[Scataphagos]

90% win rate means nothing, but is doable. Hell selling small out of the money options wins 95-98% of the time. The disaster that ensues the remaining 2.5% of the time is why it isn't a good idea.

"Anything for small money" is irrelevant, regardless. Even when the trend is in your favor, high win rates are only temporary.

(I remember years ago when someone was touting his "great success" trading Fidelity Select funds. When asked "what percentage of your capital are you trading"? The answer was "5%... the rest is in US Treasuries".) Hey, you can "pay to see a monkey fuck a football for 5%".... if you get my drift.

IOW... small money results mean nothing.... about the same as paper trading.