Winning is Easy, Consistency is The Tricky Part.

Triggerfish

Active member
Nothing is 100% guaranteed, but there are certain set ups that historically work xx% of the time, for example a hammer at the bottom of a down trend is more often than not a signal market will turn around there.

So based on a positive expectancy of a strategy, you have confirmed that it cannot be 100% guaranteed, then how can you say that having a positive expectancy strategy is in actual fact a "winning strategy".....clearly it is not.....it is only based on fantasy!.....fabrication!.....guess work!.....hit and hope!

Do we understand the difference here?.....if there is no guarantee then there is no consistency in the equation, therefore winning consistency cannot be achieved.....more importantly, do we understand why?
 

the hare

Senior member
So based on a positive expectancy of a strategy, you have confirmed that it cannot be 100% guaranteed, then how can you say that having a positive expectancy strategy is in actual fact a "winning strategy".....clearly it is not.....it is only based on fantasy!.....fabrication!.....guess work!.....hit and hope!

Do we understand the difference here?.....if there is no guarantee then there is no consistency in the equation, therefore winning consistency cannot be achieved.....more importantly, do we understand why?

2 things to bear in mind here. The magnitude of the edge has a significant effect. The kind of pie in the sky numbers being bandied about in this thread would absolutely guarantee a profitable outcome over a few hundred trades. Edges of 50% winners at 2:1 are pure fantasy, no one has ever achieved anything remotely like that nor do they need too.

The second thing is consistency, what exactly does that mean ? If you want x return in y period of time, as you point out its not going happen, regardless of the edge, the rate and distribution in returns are always going to be random.

If you view consistency as being able to make reasonable returns on say an annual basis, you might get a bit closer to achieving that, provided the edge holds etc
 

Splitlink

Legendary member
I feel like I am just repeating myself over and over now.

A winning strategy, a strategy with positive expectancy is one where you can quantify that set up will work a certain percentage of the time with a risk/reward that will make that profitable.

Which part of that is unclear?

What Triggerfish wants you to understand is that there are no guarantees. 100% guarantee is infinitely much better than "a strong expectancy over a period of time", which carries a degree of doubt about it.

You mention hammers. I can say that I am so fed up with candlesticks that I , now, go along with barcharts and do not want to know about greens or reds.

Having a bar close below the open has no significance to me, at all, because every time frame will be different.

This is digression from your argument and I am sorry. I know what you are trying to put across to us about consistency but I am afraid that one is only consistent for a relatively short time and one must not get complacent about what is, probably, nothing more than a winning streak---welcome as that might be.
 

Profitsniper007

Active member
I am not going to sit here and argue the point with people - that is a waste of life.

You may follow my trades here and I aim to show you that it is indeed possible to beat the market and the numbers I quote are not unattainable.

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/trading-journals/174586-me-vrs-market.html

Of course there will be people who think I am lying and just cherry pick what trade to show you, I am not going to do anything to dispel this doubt, frankly, I don't care if people don't believe me.

I am more interested in helping those who do.
 

Shakone

Senior member
I am not going to sit here and argue the point with people - that is a waste of life.

You may follow my trades here and I aim to show you that it is indeed possible to beat the market and the numbers I quote are not unattainable.

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/trading-journals/174586-me-vrs-market.html

Of course there will be people who think I am lying and just cherry pick what trade to show you, I am not going to do anything to dispel this doubt, frankly, I don't care if people don't believe me.

I am more interested in helping those who do.

So you're not interested in discussion.

Just promoting your non-live calls is all you're interested in, right? Not here to be part of the community, because you don't care if people believe you. You just want to vend.

Got it.

And here we go again. And again. And again...
 

Profitsniper007

Active member
So you're not interested in discussion.

Just promoting your non-live calls is all you're interested in, right? Not here to be part of the community, because you don't care if people believe you. You just want to vend.

Got it.

And here we go again. And again. And again...

I am and will partake in productive discussion, but I am not going to enter into arguments.

When you start making statements like;

"no one has ever achieved anything remotely like that"

Like you have somehow spoke to checked out everyone ever, and appear to be so headstrong in your opinions that nothing I say will make any difference, I am not going to waste time debating it, it is unproductive.

I sell live calls, so I will not be giving them out free, it would be unfair to those who pay for them.

I will share my opinions on the market and be part of the community but I will not spend time on something that will inevitably go round in circles.
 

Shakone

Senior member
So you're talking about the hare saying that nobody ever had 50% with 1:2 risk:reward, and criticising him for making general statements for which he has no proof. But you're the one who said 'that most successful traders think in pips' and yet when we got down to it, it turned out that you have no evidence for that, and were just making a general statement with no evidence based on a few people you once met.

You're such a tool.
 

Profitsniper007

Active member
I'm looking at a statement right now from someone pitching me a PAMM where they have traded somewhere in the area of 70-80 times over the last 5 months, and lost 2 trades.

Both losses add up to a total of under 0.5% of the smallest win.
 

the hare

Senior member
There are people out there that if they shared what they do, it would rock the very foundations of what you believe to be possible.

Its amazing isn't it that none of these people have audited track records. I've been looking at this stuff for years and Ive yet to find anyone whose performance is significantly better than my own, in most cases its a lot worse.

Its also amazing that the people who make these claims, and attempt to solicit funding on the basis of those claims generally cannot back up these claims. The truth is there's enough gullible idiots around to fund them that they don't need to

I know people who made hundreds of millions in this game, possibly even billions in one case, but they didn't do it by possessing any kind of realistic edge.

Citing statistics based on x wins out of y trades is pretty meaningless without an understanding of risks, drawdowns etc. its not as if its hard to achieve.

Name me one single trader who had returns consistant with a mathematical expectancy of 50% win rate at 2:1.

I'm not talking about some vendor low life gaming the system at fx book, I'm talking about traders with public ally audited track records. Name me one.
 

Profitsniper007

Active member
Its amazing isn't it that none of these people have audited track records. I've been looking at this stuff for years and Ive yet to find anyone whose performance is significantly better than my own, in most cases its a lot worse.

Its also amazing that the people who make these claims, and attempt to solicit funding on the basis of those claims generally cannot back up these claims. The truth is there's enough gullible idiots around to fund them that they don't need to

I know people who made hundreds of millions in this game, possibly even billions in one case, but they didn't do it by possessing any kind of realistic edge.

Citing statistics based on x wins out of y trades is pretty meaningless without an understanding of risks, drawdowns etc. its not as if its hard to achieve.

Name me one single trader who had returns consistant with a mathematical expectancy of 50% win rate at 2:1.

I'm not talking about some vendor low life gaming the system at fx book, I'm talking about traders with public ally audited track records. Name me one.

I believe the best audited returns are around 18,000% over 6 years or something, from a hedge fund, Why would a retail trader getting they returns want to be on radar?

Some people I have had the privilege of getting some advice from have been extremely hard to get hold of, extremely expensive to get time with and even then it has generally been very limited time - quite a few times I was quite blatantly ripped off, so I understand skepism, but you will never find what you don't believe exists - even if you tripped over it in the street.

Generally, people can not show documented proof of their claims when pitching PAMM, I must be pitched 10 a week that do not even warrant thought. This guy did send me him MT4 statements (and came via a very trusted sources, but obviously that is totally subjective) and it was pretty impressive what he had done (I was wrong before, he has not traded 70-80 times, he had sent me two accounts with duplicate trades), he had made 15% with a max draw down of about $8, on a $250,000 account - this is worth looking at. I will pull up charts and dissect each trade.

What I would respectfully suggest, is you don't assume to know all traders. Most don't want a public profile, most will not wish to be known. If you look into advanced patterns I expect you will find ones that give you a damn good expectancy of being able to win more than you lose. Then, if you are dedicated enough to eyeball chats for hours on end testing and tweaking idea, running into deadends and trying something else - over and over, you will find, although there is no "holy grail", there is a lot of gold.

If you want to trade intraday, clearly it is going to be unlikely you can win 50% of trades, longer term, it is not even that hard.

You could have bought ever EJ pull back to the 23% fib once it broke 100 and used 76% fib as SL, traded it 2:1 and not lost a trade yet, still be in the most recent one this year. Before that, with that strat, you were bearish I don't have charts open, so am just going on memory here, but I'm pretty sure over the last 2 years that would have gave you 50% wins or better on 2:1. People done this, that happened.

With stricter rules you could have bought 38 fib with same ratio or better and had a even better expectation. For a few years now that would have been profitable at that ratio.
 

Profitsniper007

Active member
A little over 2 years ago I paid a guy a grand and in about a hour he set out a whole "If .. then" strat on UJ. If it goes here, then it will go here, these are options of how you can trade it.

At the time I felt conned - as it transpires, I was not. Not only did I make more money than that trading his plan, but when I sat and picked it apart I worked out how he had done it and learned something worth well over a grand.
 

bigboyfx

Junior member
Can a strategy with positive expectancy turn out as planned consistently?.....surely there is a difference between stating what it can do and actually doing it/achieving it?.....is it guaranteed to work?

There is more to just having a working strategy. A good trader should know that the only way to consistently make profit with a strategy is to avoid making hasty decisions. A particular strategy that is built on technical analysis must be proven 100% effective by looking at the fundamental side of the market. Of course it requires patience to do that.
 
 
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

But it's thanks to our sponsors that access to Trade2Win remains free for all. By viewing our ads you help us pay our bills, so please support the site and disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks