Forex Trading systems with 99.97% winning rate?

[bedsit]

One cannot be careful enough - there are lot of crafty members using all sort of tricks trying to revel the secrets behind successful strats.

 

[Cornix]

What is the sense of looking for such a system? Any business has expenses, losses are trading business expenses, not something negative or to be scared of.

IMO, trader should look for optimal equity curve, not for the winning rate alone.

 

[fayalac]

What is the sense of looking for such a system? Any business has expenses, losses are trading business expenses, not something negative or to be scared of.

IMO, trader should look for optimal equity curve, not for the winning rate alone.

There is nothing wrong with that, please understands the point here. We are all looking for the same.
The point here is that 99.97% winning rate, that is hard to believe.
If you tell me over 90% winning rate, inspite that it can still be hard to believe, i do believe it, my trading method works tat way but i can not tell you 99.97%.
Anyway, a lot of people here will just tell you that it is not possible because most of them are not real traders, most of them use only demo accounts and most of them are only trying to show that they know the bussiness.
I am sure there might be a lot of methods with a winning rate over 90%, most of them may be used with an EA.
There is nothin wrong.

 

[Cornix]

There is nothing wrong with that, please understands the point here. We are all looking for the same.
The point here is that 99.97% winning rate, that is hard to believe.
If you tell me over 90% winning rate, inspite that it can still be hard to believe, i do believe it, my trading method works tat way but i can not tell you 99.97%.
Anyway, a lot of people here will just tell you that it is not possible because most of them are not real traders, most of them use only demo accounts and most of them are only trying to show that they know the bussiness.
I am sure there might be a lot of methods with a winning rate over 90%, most of them may be used with an EA.
There is nothin wrong.

I agree that there's nothing wrong in finding out if such a method exists.

But my point was, that efforts of one trying to improve his/her trading would be much more productive if more attention paid to more significant factors, such as equity curve, total return, max. drawdown etc.

Newbies often fall in that trap of trying to avoid losses and looking for a holy grail. Which is very self-destructive, that's why such a negativity towards such an attitude from me.

IMO, one should better learn to lose correctly and to trade correctly considering the fact, that losses will happen as opposed to chasing for a holy grail. Will save a lot of time, money and nerve cells.

 

[fayalac]

Yes, i agree with you.
The more attention paid to those significant factors, the higher the chances to build a profitable method, you will NEVER succeed avoiding losses, and you will never reach a 100% success probability.
One thing i have always told newbies, when they ask, is that the only way to find a good and profitable method is to look for the holy grail if they can define what it means for them.

 

[Cornix]

Yes, i agree with you.
The more attention paid to those significant factors, the higher the chances to build a profitable method, you will NEVER succeed avoiding losses, and you will never reach a 100% success probability.
One thing i have always told newbies, when they ask, is that the only way to find a good and profitable method is to look for the holy grail if they can define what it means for them.

Yes, true. Holy grail does exist, but it means different thing for different traders, including 20% hit rate, but huge R:R for some.

Trying to completely avoid losses, from the other side, is very harmful for a newbie, because misleads him/her into unproductive efforts and often into taking more risk, in the case of reckless averaging down for example.

 

[alan5616]

Yes, true. Holy grail does exist, but it means different thing for different traders, including 20% hit rate, but huge R:R for some.

Trying to completely avoid losses, from the other side, is very harmful for a newbie, because misleads him/her into unproductive efforts and often into taking more risk, in the case of reckless averaging down for example.

With all due respect, associating the phrase "averaging down" with the word "reckless" is misleading. Many successful traders have made their fortunes with AD as part of their strategy.

If a trader has an unshakeable belief that he/she is right to take a view on a particular currency pair, then buying/selling at various levels may be how they seek to maximise profits, if they are correct. This is exactly what investment funds have been doing for many years. The most successful example being George Soros and GBP, in 1992. Every time it went up, he added to his short positions. We all know how that ended

 

[Cornix]

With all due respect, associating the phrase "averaging down" with the word "reckless" is misleading. Many successful traders have made their fortunes with AD as part of their strategy.

If a trader has an unshakeable belief that he/she is right to take a view on a particular currency pair, then buying/selling at various levels may be how they seek to maximise profits, if they are correct. This is exactly what investment funds have been doing for many years. The most successful example being George Soros and GBP, in 1992. Every time it went up, he added to his short positions. We all know how that ended

Yes, of course, it was intended to be read "reckless averaging down" as a whole, not to mean any averaging down is reckless.

AD can be a powerful tool in certain conditions, but is also very dangerous, because many newbies try to simply avoid losing trades, by not taking losses and adding to a losing position, even in conditions, which are exactly opposite to those, which favour reasonable averaging down.

I averaged down myself into oil back in early 2009, when it hit the lows and floated near the break-even for most producing countries, so further decline was unlikely, as they already started to cut production by then.

But those situations are not really common and do not happen often.

 

[bedsit]

With all due respect, associating the phrase "averaging down" with the word "reckless" is misleading. Many successful traders have made their fortunes with AD as part of their strategy.

If a trader has an unshakeable belief that he/she is right to take a view on a particular currency pair, then buying/selling at various levels may be how they seek to maximise profits, if they are correct. This is exactly what investment funds have been doing for many years. The most successful example being George Soros and GBP, in 1992. Every time it went up, he added to his short positions. We all know how that ended

I believe you Allan. I've seen it done by a top professional trader - it was a trade that I would have suffered a big loss and yet he managed to get out with a profit. It didn't go as planned (it went against him from the start), but he was re-entering (averaging down) all the time and on even the smallest moves in his favour he would lock some profit. I was following it all the time and at the beginning felt sorry for him, but he kept his nerve and excellent concentration.

One must be realistic - I know I can't trade like him (nowhere near that level) and I won't use averaging down. Never than less I've seen it done and it was spectacular (I didn't trade at that time, but if felt like I was completely involved).

 

[Cornix]

My view of AD: it is only applicable in rare, even unique situations, when all factors are in line and mostly in commodities, which have a sure "floor", which is well above zero.

I would recommend trading newbies to completely forget averaging down, though, because it is not to be used as every day method anywhere outside from long term investment strategies and would lead to more problems than benefits for a newbie learning to trade.

Because motivation to average down is wrong from the start for many: not to accumulate a long term position, according to fundamental situation, but to try to avoid realizing a loss, which is a big no-no and ironically leads to bigger and more severe losses, than one can imagine.

 

[bedsit]

but to try to avoid realizing a loss, which is a big no-no and ironically leads to bigger and more severe losses, than one can imagine.

Agree with you cornixforex.
I've tried it and managed to avoid losses few times, but after thinking about it decided not to do it any more. If it goes pear shaped, losses can be spectacular.

 

[MajorDutch]

How much would you pay for it?

You could hand most people a written description of an excellent trading edge and they probably wouldn't be able to execute it profitably. There are a number of reasons for this which I wont go into.

 

[GlenGary]

All comes down to the Mind,

sh5467 hit it on the head, in so many words..

It has taken me 350 days to figure it out, and I finally have what it takes..

Im 7 days from my 1 year anniversary to being introduced to Forex, and it wasnt the system, or the set-up, it was my mind that wasnt ready.

 

[neil]

You could hand most people a written description of an excellent trading edge and they probably wouldn't be able to execute it profitably. There are a number of reasons for this which I wont go into.

Agreed - a case in point is the "Turtles" system