Hi Traduk,
Welcome to T2W!
That is exactly how many of the well funded pro traders operate. They probe the markets several times to catch a turn of a trend and accept losers each time that they are wrong. They then ride the new trend for weeks or months to massively swing the W\L vs R\R into the positive expectation derived from a huge number in the reward factor.
Yes, I understand this completely, but there will only ever be a very small percentage of traders who trade this way (be they pro's, amateurs or the out and out deluded) because, as I said in my ealier post, it's psychologically very tough. Full credit to those that can handle it.
Many facts that are gleaned from reading and bandied about as pertinent really only apply to a small subset of traders and need investigation rather than acceptance by a large audience. Before switching to futures I traded options from the retail and wholesale side. When I switched I had continuously been in positions for 4.5 years and that was plenty long enough for me. The advent of take it or leave it daytrading was\is a pleasant relief from being perpetually vulnerable.
Each to their own. For the most part, the 'reality' of the markets is what exists within our heads. It's like a complex abstract painting in which different people continually see different things. To echo your point, I feel vulnerable the longer I'm in a trade, hence I prefer to get in and out fast, which pretty well excludes me from trading like you used to or like your hedge fund friend does now - even if I had the ability!
The downside to short term trading is that you can never make from more than is available within the short term and methods must reflect a realistic approach. For me that means a hit rate of better than 70% with a hoped for R\R of somewhere near 3 to 1. With the hoped for R\R of 3 to 1, I still have to rely on the occasional one way trend day to lift that average because on other days some winners are not a lot better than scratch.
Well, if in excess of two trades out of three are winners and if, on average, they make three times as much as the losing trades lose, I'd say you're in trading nirvana. Going back to the opening point, I'd wager that most traders would happily settle for these stat's in preference to a strategy that only has a hit rate of only 30% - 40%, but makes more $$$$ in the long run as a result of catching a strong trend.
I see a pro trader element crept into a later post:cheesy: LOL I have traded for 25 years and have never been classified as a pro nor would I ever describe myself as one. I have during that time been asked to join a hedge fund (3X) and form a hedge fund with my buddy but no thanks. I think its funny and delusional that the concept of earning £100 per week gives the right to claim pro status as in my case at least it would exactly cover my data costs but no more
I quite agree in as much as I can't imagine ever calling myself a 'pro' trader either, even if I had your track record. It's meaningless anyway, no one cares if you or I consider ourselves pro' or not - and nor should they. That said, if I was to try and define what pro' meant and therefore who could legitimately describe themselves as such, the requirements made in my post to Paul71 are good enough for me. Subject to these caveats, whether the dollar return is $100 per minute or $100 per week - really isn't an issue.
Tim.
