tonny: also provide proof that your way is better because you are disagreeing with other people's preferences this is whx i had asked that anyone with adviser level powers to include their trading in signals so that the advice can be weighed
It isn't a strategy that I am trying to explain it is a fundamental way of determining if a strategy's Win Rate is a result of the strategy itself or simply as a result of the Risk:Reward used. I have published my data above, you can reproduce it for yourself and confirm my findings or refute them, it's a simple enough task for someone that can code a little mql4 or 5.
Im still not understanding. All this and you still hit 150k. My point is that a winning strategy is good as long as its risk of ruin(as in the stats) of say 50% of the account is little. Its all in controlling the lot size that way even a risky and wining strategy can be traded safely.
tonny: Im still not understanding. All this and you still hit 150k. My point is that a winning strategy is good as long as its risk of ruin(as in the stats) of say 50% of the account is little. Its all in controlling the lot size that way even a risky and wining strategy can be traded safely.
As I have said before, I did not lose £150k . . . it is a cost, if you buy a burger for $5 have you lost $5 ?
The simplest way of avoiding ruin is to not trade, so not trading is a good strategy ?
OK, let me explain it this way, take a strategy that is random in the way it places trades, it goes long and short for no particular reason and it goes long 50% and short 50%. What do you think will be the win rate of this strategy ? You can't answer this question without more information, what information do you need ?
also provide proof that your way is better because you are disagreeing with other people's preferences this is whx i had asked that anyone with adviser level powers to include their trading in signals so that the advice can be weighed
Im still not understanding. All this and you still hit 150k. My point is that a winning strategy is good as long as its risk of ruin(as in the stats) of say 50% of the account is little. Its all in controlling the lot size that way even a risky and wining strategy can be traded safely.
As I have said before, I did not lose £150k . . . it is a cost, if you buy a burger for $5 have you lost $5 ?
The simplest way of avoiding ruin is to not trade, so not trading is a good strategy ?
OK, let me explain it this way, take a strategy that is random in the way it places trades, it goes long and short for no particular reason and it goes long 50% and short 50%. What do you think will be the win rate of this strategy ? You can't answer this question without more information, what information do you need ?