those fibs are way too small in range imo...es could blow through that in a heart beat, but gl.
"The only way to trade with Fibonaccis" journal
- Thread starter 1a2b3cppp
- Start date
I just came back to this thread to say that in the last 20 minutes price has only alternated between a range of 2 ticks. lol. But I just heard the "ding" and the trade just closed out. It stayed at 1 contract.
As for the range, I don't decide where the retracements are going to happen or how big they are going to be. Sometimes they're huge, sometimes they're tiny. I try to avoid the ones that are too small.
But remember: if fibs are magical and price is drawn to them or whatever, then the range shouldn't matter, should it?
May be about to have my first losing trade this week :eek:
Basically if the ES hits 1145.75 before it hits 1148 I'm gonna lose this one.
I'm in 9 contracts deep now.
edit - not sure why the order arrows aren't showing on this pic. Sometimes OEC turns them off and I have to go into settings and turn them back on. It's annoying.
Basically if the ES hits 1145.75 before it hits 1148 I'm gonna lose this one.
I'm in 9 contracts deep now.
edit - not sure why the order arrows aren't showing on this pic. Sometimes OEC turns them off and I have to go into settings and turn them back on. It's annoying.
No pnl blotter?...you showed us the winning days....show the loss. Did you give it ALL back?
You pulled that p&l out of your ass didn't you....
First, it's virtually impossible for you to have bigger winning trades than losing trades with your strategy according to your own rules in which you stated that you average-in to the trade(see his last trade).
Second, this is no more than a 50/50 winning strategy at best so I find it unbelievable that you had 7 winning trades.
Dude, get off the simulator, move out of your mommy's basement, and get a real job....
Here we go...
Wrong.
By definition of this entry system, the biggest possible win for any given trade (9 contracts) will be MORE than the biggest possible loss (9 contracts). Why? Because the way I average in right now causes the average price to be below the 50% retracement. If I entered like 3/3/3 or something, then you'd be right, but that's why I average down. Open an excel sheet and verify yourself. It's simple. I can post the spreadsheet with the formulas if you want.
And since the 50% retracement is exactly halfway between profit and stop loss, an average price that is below the 50% retracement means when I'm fully loaded with 9 contracts, the target profit is further away from the average price than the stop loss, thus the biggest win is bigger than the biggest loss for any given trade.
That doesn't mean I can't have losers that are bigger than winners on different trades, but it means that for any given trade the max possible win is bigger than the max possible loss.
About your second point, the total possible point value for any given trade is dependent upon the range of the fib retracements that I draw. It's not always the same point value. I've posted some screenshots here where it was narrow, and also where it was big. So that's why different trades are different dollar amounts even if they have the same number of contracts.
QED.
How exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that it is "50/50 at best"?
Good one
Quote from 1a2b3cppp:
Here we go...
Wrong.
By definition of this entry system, the biggest possible win for any given trade (9 contracts) will be MORE than the biggest possible loss (9 contracts). Why? Because the way I average in right now causes the average price to be below the 50% retracement. If I entered like 3/3/3 or something, then you'd be right, but that's why I average down. Open an excel sheet and verify yourself. It's simple. I can post the spreadsheet with the formulas if you want.
And since the 50% retracement is exactly halfway between profit and stop loss, an average price that is below the 50% retracement means when I'm fully loaded with 9 contracts, the target profit is further away from the average price than the stop loss, thus the biggest win is bigger than the biggest loss for any given trade.
That doesn't mean I can't have losers that are bigger than winners on different trades, but it means that for any given trade the max possible win is bigger than the max possible loss.
About your second point, the total possible point value for any given trade is dependent upon the range of the fib retracements that I draw. It's not always the same point value. I've posted some screenshots here where it was narrow, and also where it was big. So that's why different trades are different dollar amounts even if they have the same number of contracts.
QED.
How exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that it is "50/50 at best"?
Good one
I'd like to see that spreadsheet if you don't mind, If you're scaling in at 38.2%, 50%, and 61.8%, you can't get an average price less than the 61.8% level or much less than the 50% level. The only way to get an average price close to 61.8% means you would have to "load the boat" at the 61.8% which also means that on trades that never hit the 61.8% level, you would be so small that your mathematical expectancy will be fucked up. But please post the spreadsheet for us all to review.
Over time ALL SYSTEMS/METHODS DROP TO 50% OR LESS. Give this system/method some time and enough trades and you'll see what I mean. At best, this is a breakeven method.
Edit: You should also adjust the contracts on each trade to maintain a constant amount of risk for each trade - i.e., you should never lose $500 on one trade and then lose $900 on a different trade. Each trade should have the same dollar risk by adjusting contracts.