Sep 15, 2013 -- 12:08PM, cpfc4me wrote:
Darlo - I meant that the exercise of determining how your initial entries into markets would have fared as punts is pointless. Obviously trading itself is not pointless, and I picked 40 as a number at random because that is a rough average for myself in an NBA or NFL game.
I wondered if you meant something like that.
Sep 15, 2013 -- 4:37PM, TheInvestor2 wrote:
And here is another stat:Year % Win Days2007 95.83%2008 87.99%2009 85.16%2010 79.10%2011 74.38%2012 72.20%
was that due to market wising up, or you taking more risk? i know it will be a combination of both, but was wondering if you can identify the more significant of the two?
Sep 24, 2013 -- 12:16AM, cpfc4me wrote:
Mardock - I'm not suggesting traders can "aim" for a ratio close to 1:1, only that over a long period of time, the better traders will have a number closer to this than less experienced or talented traders. I have yet to see any evidence that contradicts this theory, although admittedly not too many traders seem willing or able to share their numbers.Your example of closing a market with a tiny profit is indeed exactly what new traders tend to do. They take a position, the market moves in their favour, and they can't wait to lock in a profit. The result is lots of small wins, but the same trader will let a bad move go on for longer. Hence the larger average size of losses to wins.
Which comes back to my initial point about win:loss sizes being relevant to win:loss numbers.
Which is the better trader?
One who makes lots and lots of small wins, one or two big losses, and comes out in profit.
One who makes a similar number of wins to losses, with the wins slightly higher than the losses, and comes out in profit.
They both can make the same profit levels for the same risk.