This is a very silly thread for the obvious reason. It is not the style that determines the winning strategy but the results, the R:R, Sharpe,etc.
So you would be a better trader because you needed 200 trades to achieve exactly the SAME profit what I did with 5 trades??? I am sure your broker loves you more though...
And no, your profit wouldn't exceed mine, because in the example we both had the SAME profit!!!
Now for those who come up with the "stay in the market for shorter time to reduce risk" argument all I can say, if you don't stay in for the big winners, you obviously won't have them...
Now I am done with this thread....
Quote from yoohoo:
Pekelo, in your example I'd be the better trader....
My profit would almost always exceed yours by a very large margin after slippage and commissions.
So you would be a better trader because you needed 200 trades to achieve exactly the SAME profit what I did with 5 trades??? I am sure your broker loves you more though...

And no, your profit wouldn't exceed mine, because in the example we both had the SAME profit!!!
Now for those who come up with the "stay in the market for shorter time to reduce risk" argument all I can say, if you don't stay in for the big winners, you obviously won't have them...
Now I am done with this thread....
Thus volatility cannot be shown in shorter time frames to be mean reverting as the neat square-root-of-time rule wants it. So when widening the time scale 3 times, we may need much more space for max adverse excursions (and thus for stops) than textbook sqrt(3) times. For the symmetrical (commodities) case, the formula for scaling risk estimates when moving from shorter to longer time frames (VaR reports et al) was developed by Drost and Nijman (PM me if you could use a C implementation). As for stocks and their indices (and other instruments with a bias, and thus asymmetric distributions), last time I checked, we were still swimming in uncharted waters (correct me if I'm wrong). So we had better put less trust in mean reversion and loosen that stop a bit to prevent non-Gaussian noise from shaking us out. And on the positive side - let's ride that multi-sigma divergences at the vola seller's expense and thank Mr Taleb afterwards (I wish I listened to him earlier