If by "these guys" you're including me, "reward" is impossible to determine in advance, and, no I don't scale out of trades.
Can I assume we won't be hearing any more about your trade ahead of time?
When Indicators Don't Lag
- Thread starter BOC
- Start date
If by "these guys" you're including me, "reward" is impossible to determine in advance, and, no I don't scale out of trades.
Can I assume we won't be hearing any more about your trade ahead of time?
Ahead of time? That was your suggestion, I trade what's in front of me, I thought we cleared that up already. So far you were provided with setups using price/indicator patterns, next week you will get my entries and stops. What else would you like?
Surely you must realise that this is all pointless to a degree, some will work out, some may not (not straight away perhaps), but what will work in the end is positive outcome which will basically prove that capital and trade management prevail in the end.
Last edited:
Thank you, you made my point. But I can't be bothered to explain further.
Other than to say, I didn't say above average winnings or above average win rate.
Unfortunately it is so far hindsight, and if the entry isn't provided until after it's taken, that will be hindsight as well.
How difficult is it to state in advance what your entry price will be? The so-called MACD divergences took place long ago, so there must be something else you're waiting for. You're under no obligation to explain what that is, but let's not pretend that you enter due to MACD divergences.
I don't know what your point was, so if I made it, it was accidental. And, no, you didn't say above average, you said 90%. But a "high winrate" needn't be 90%. But for a beginner, it sure as hell needs to be a lot better than 30%.
What's your obsession with being told ahead of time? I don't get the point, assume entries at current prices then. Hindsight is whenever you analyse events that already took place and they haven't, you were given indication of forecast that hasn't taken place yet, hence no hindsight on my part.
I'm not obsessed with it. I just don't see the problem in stating when or at what price one is going to buy. An explanation of why would also be helpful, since this is a trading forum.
As for the no hindsight part, real-time-message-board posts are hindsight. Sorry, that's just the way it is. (The divergences, of course, have already occurred, so their relevance to the trade continues to be unclear.)
Is someone asking you for real time calls or ahead of time calls? If so, are they providing transparency as well?
I don't understand what he is after anymore. He keeps saying it's not valid as it's already happened, but the objective isn't in 'who spots a divergence before it happens', but in spotting one, which is in a trader's discretionary opinion a good one and then making a trading plan. Then he keeps saying what about other divergences that you didn't choose, as if all are to be chosen. Considered yes, chosen not necessarily. Then he quotes Jim Rogers who basically said he only puts on a trade when the time is right, but he wants me to choose every divergence and provide stats for them. He always wants something extra, never happy that one.
Suntrader,
Your statement 1: You have trouble comprehending.
This is what I wrote already numerous times now:You should not aim for high win rates, you should aim for high profits.
It is clear that you have trouble comprehending, not me. Unless you react like this on purpose.
You should be able then to proof that my last post is nonsense. But you even don't go into this matter.
Your statement 2: High profits almost always means low win rate and vice versa.
Statement 2 is a partial contradiction of your statement 1.
But according to statement 2 there is an inverse correlation between profit and win rate. You even explicitly want to remove the word "ALMOST".
Let's see what this will give in some hypothetical cases that follow your rule:
Let's vary win rate from 100% to 0% and follow your rule concerning the inverse correlation:
So if the win rate is 100% you have the lowest profit, and if the win rate is 0% you have the highest profit. I am not smart enough for this trading technique. I am not smart enough to understand how 0% profitable trades can give the highest profit. The definition of profit is to have more money in your account I hope, because if not we should first discuss about the definition of profit.
If you replace the word "profit" by "losses" in the hypothese it would make more sense to me. 100% win rate would mean small (or even no) losses; 0% win rate would mean lots of losses.
To resume:
I think there is a relation between profits and win rates, but this relation is specifically for 1 trading system. I think each trading system has is own characteristics that define what kind of relation there is between profits and win rates. This relation can be inverse, but it can also be NOT inverse. This relation can evolve linear, exponential, parabolic, hyperbolic... It all depends on the characteristics of the trading.
Your statement 1: You have trouble comprehending.
High profits mean just that ... Profits are high.
Regardless of win rate
Regardless of win rate
This is what I wrote already numerous times now:You should not aim for high win rates, you should aim for high profits.
It is clear that you have trouble comprehending, not me. Unless you react like this on purpose.
You should be able then to proof that my last post is nonsense. But you even don't go into this matter.
Your statement 2: High profits almost always means low win rate and vice versa.
Win rate is almost always inversely related to profits. And I might be wrong about including the almost word.
Statement 2 is a partial contradiction of your statement 1.
- In statement 1 you say: regardless of win rates ...(so win rate is irrelevant)
- In statement 2 you say: Win rate is (almost) always inversely related to profits.
But according to statement 2 there is an inverse correlation between profit and win rate. You even explicitly want to remove the word "ALMOST".
Let's see what this will give in some hypothetical cases that follow your rule:
Let's vary win rate from 100% to 0% and follow your rule concerning the inverse correlation:
So if the win rate is 100% you have the lowest profit, and if the win rate is 0% you have the highest profit. I am not smart enough for this trading technique. I am not smart enough to understand how 0% profitable trades can give the highest profit. The definition of profit is to have more money in your account I hope, because if not we should first discuss about the definition of profit.
If you replace the word "profit" by "losses" in the hypothese it would make more sense to me. 100% win rate would mean small (or even no) losses; 0% win rate would mean lots of losses.
To resume:
- I first said big profits are linke to high win rates
- Later I made a correction and said it was the case in my trading but that I was wrong to generalize.
- Later is said that high profits are important and that my statement, from higher profits means higher winrate, cannot be used as general rule.
I think there is a relation between profits and win rates, but this relation is specifically for 1 trading system. I think each trading system has is own characteristics that define what kind of relation there is between profits and win rates. This relation can be inverse, but it can also be NOT inverse. This relation can evolve linear, exponential, parabolic, hyperbolic... It all depends on the characteristics of the trading.
Last edited: