Winning is Easy, Consistency is The Tricky Part.

Triggerfish

Active member
229 14
A winning strategy, a strategy with positive expectancy is one where you can quantify that set up with work a certain percentage of the time with a risk/reward that will make that profitable.

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?
 

hacks

Active member
237 4
One who can last for longer periods doesn't mean one can win/ be successful! -

Yes, I never said that you just have to stay in the game and magically will win. Just if you have no money to trade with, it does not matter how good a set up you, how well you would have traded it ... you can not


the person with a larger account against someone with a demo account bears no difference -

I don't quite understand this bit in this context - demo accounts are limitlessness redeemable and you can keep reloading and try to improve.

Winning cannot happen on its own, being right consistently makes winning possible.....so what exactly is it that makes consistency?

It is not essential to win consistently, if you are only risking 15 pips and going for 150, you have to win pretty rarely to be net profitable, and year on year you can gain with consistency (of course with some draw downs)

If you have a strategy coupled with a risk/reward ratio that gives a positive expectation - for example, if you can win 50% of trades at 2:1 ratio, you are going to win.

It is not hard to find a winning strategy.

For example, you can trade gartly patterns and expect to in over 70% of the time (generally accepted statistic) - if you trade this even at a 1:1 ratio, you can expect to gain consistency over the years, the odds are in favor.


Where people struggle, is FOLLOWING a strategy. Many people out there losing with winning strategies because they break the rules.

Demo Accounts don't give you the emotional attachment to the risk and reward that a live account does - that is why you can't compare them.

If you are risking 15 pips and going for 150 - trust me - I have done a lot of backtesting on this - you either have a low winning percentage or a large number of consecutive losing trades (or both).
 

Profitsniper007

Active member
107 2
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?

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 your strategy could be you buy every valid hammer with a 3:1 ratio and if it works out over 50% of the time, you make money.

There are various set ups that you can back test and see how many times that worked, and from there you can see if you have the statistical edge.

Let's say Tyson was to have a boxing match with Lada Gaga, and you could get 2:1 odds on Tyson winning - Tyson is the favorite and you are getting better odds on him winning, this is not guaranteed - but a fairly good bet.

Especially if they fight 10 times and you can bet with the same odds every time.
 

Profitsniper007

Active member
107 2
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 your strategy could be you buy every valid hammer with a 3:1 ratio and if it works out over 50% of the time, you make money.

There are various set ups that you can back test and see how many times that worked, and from there you can see if you have the statistical edge.

Let's say Tyson was to have a boxing match with Lada Gaga, and you could get 2:1 odds on Tyson winning - Tyson is the favorite and you are getting better odds on him winning, this is not guaranteed - but a fairly good bet.

Especially if they fight 10 times and you can bet with the same odds every time.

Lada Gaga may be a bad example lol, she is rather butch.
 

Profitsniper007

Active member
107 2
Another way to put it would be if you play poker, if you have pocket aces, you are at least 70% favorite against any other hand, so when you have pocket aces, if someone goes all in before any cards are dealt, you call - is a no brainer.

You can lose that hand, you can lose several hands, but if you go all with it 100 times, and overall you lose, you were extremely unlucky.

Is all about consistently having the odds in your favor, if you have the odds in your favor over and over and over you have a very good chance of winning.

If a gartly pattern has been established to work 70% of the time and you trade it 10 times at 1:1 ratio, it's far more likely you will win more than lose.

If you trade it 50 times, even more likely (and so on)
 

Triggerfish

Active member
229 14
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
2,949 1,283
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: Liquid validity

Splitlink

Legendary member
10,850 1,234
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
107 2
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
2,458 665
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...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Liquid validity

Profitsniper007

Active member
107 2
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
2,458 665
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
107 2
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.
 

Profitsniper007

Active member
107 2
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.
 

the hare

Senior member
2,949 1,283
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Liquid validity
 
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