A slightly higher probability than 50%
What defines an "Edge".
- Thread starter redbaron1981
- Start date
Don't confuse win rate with positive expectancy. You can have a 60% win rate and still lose money. On the other hand, trading instruments that are not mean reverting, you can have a 35% win rate and still make good profits, >20%.
Managing R:R for the various instruments is key. I suspect many people hate forex because they just don't understand the basic differences between forex and stocks for example. You can't trade them the same way and expect to do well.
http://www.stator-afm.com/positive-expectancy/
Edge in trading, to me, is when you make your own odds in such a way that your future bad runs will be offset by the gains. If you're looking to buy XYZ you really ought to do so as close as possible to the get out zone. If you're a price action trader then double/treble bottoms/tops can be the only patterns in your arsenal. Anticipation of their occurrence is a skill to develop. Make your own odds.
Your observation is accurate, but that simply makes it worse. Probability is not certainty, win rate is actual results.
And your observation - seeing something that wasn't written. - is ridiculous. And condescending.
It just isn't. Expectancy is much closer to "actual results."
There are methods with 75% win-rates that lose money, and methods with 25% win-rates that make profits.
I'm afraid you've lost me.
How is win rate not actual results, when it is calculated from actual results? If you mean it is a derivative, so too is expectancy.
And I absolutely agree with your last statement. Those who agonise over win rates without taking into account R:R are missing the point.
I was just making the point that win-rates aren't "results": high win rates can (and often do) conceal overall losses. It was the word "results" I was qualifying, not the word "actual". We're in agreement.
Ah OK, I was looking at it from the perspective that win rate is a result, albeit not necessarily the desirable end result. Yes, we're on the same page here, and hopefully we've contributed to the discussion.I was just making the point that win-rates aren't "results": high win rates can (and often do) conceal overall losses. It was the word "results" I was qualifying, not the word "actual". We're in agreement.
