random trade

[terminator]

however trading in such a fashion should not lead to large losses on the trading side. THe majority of your losses would be through Commissions and Slippage NOT losing trades.

 

[KS96]

Quote from tradestrong:

I think the short answer is that the market has a higher probability of going up.

Assuming that the number:

GDP_growth + inflation

is positive.

 

[Mercor]

Quote from HolyGrail:

No way. Set ups and exits are everything. You are assuming all trades have an equal chance for success, and an equal amount of potential rise as fall. Since the market naturally has an upward bias you are shot out of the water immediately not withstanding the first point.

Since you are certain a market is in a upward bias, Arn't you describing an "Edge",

In a upward biased market if you were to randomly buy on the open and sell on the close, you would make money even with commisions and slippage.

 

[HolyGrail]

Quote from Mercor:

Since you are certain a market is in a upward bias, Arn't you describing an "Edge",

In a upward biased market if you were to randomly buy on the open and sell on the close, you would make money even with commisions and slippage.

No one said random long entry. They said ANY random system. That means long and short with no bias toward direction.

 

[terminator]

Quote from Mercor:

Since you are certain a market is in a upward bias, Arn't you describing an "Edge",

In a upward biased market if you were to randomly buy on the open and sell on the close, you would make money even with commisions and slippage.

on a day to day basis over time number of up days roughly = number of down days. therefore setting a mini-target during teh day say 10% of the atr you should be able to approximate a bernoulli trial. So your winnings/loss will be 50/50 with PF of 1. Losses will come from slippage/commish.

therefore any system whihc does not have an edge will have around 50/50 win loss PF of 1. That's what i've found anyway. ne1 else got the same results?