Quote from gnom:
If I set fixed target let's say .20c and stop at $1 I can hit 90% win rate. But this is such an opposite from "cut your losses short and let your winners ride". So what am I missing?
Quote from gnom:
If I set fixed target let's say .20c and stop at $1 I can hit 90% win rate. But this is such an opposite from "cut your losses short and let your winners ride". So what am I missing?
Quote from gnom:
If I set fixed target let's say .20c and stop at $1 I can hit 90% win rate. But this is such an opposite from "cut your losses short and let your winners ride". So what am I missing?
Quote from NY0BScalper:
Can you stomach the inevitable streak of 10 losers in a row? Then you need 50 winners to get back to even. If your average profit target on 20 cents is $100 (500 shares) then you'll have to be able to sit through a 5K drawdown while making money back $100/time.
I'm trading right now with slightly inverted risk/reward (albeit, I've been getting beaten up lately, but for other reasons), so it can definitely be viable.
Quote from gnom:
If you make 50+ trades a day then who cares if you have a bad day and lose 5K, next day you might have the opposite.
All I'm saying that certain things happen more often then not in the market but do require wider stop. Everybody is going after 2:1-3:1 risk to reward ratios, why not try something different? Was wondering if anybody have success with this?