Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Higher winning percentage and higher expectancy with reward kept at 1 while increasing risk.
1:3 has the lowest expectancy. It had the same winning % as 1:2 but with larger losers, therefore lower expectancy. 1:4, 1:5, and 1:6 was wide enough where the stop didn't get hit and price came back for a winning trade, creating a higher win % and a higher expectancy. Also, because of the increased risk, this strategy had about 50 less trades as the duration of the trade was increased by increasing the stop. It took the market a longer amount of time to reach the stop.
The largest string of losers in a row even with 1:6 was 3 and a couple of 2 losers in a row as well. The average loss on 1:2 vs 2:1 was of course 2x the amount.
Looking at the numbers the strategy I am leaning towards with arbitrary r/r is 1:2. The average loser is 2x the amount as 2:1 but it's still not a number that would affect me psychologically. 1:2 actually only had 33 less trades than 2:1. The higher the risk, the longer the duration therefore less trades. 1:4 - 1:6 all were around 50.
In the same amount of time, 1:2 out performed 2:1 by 15% ROE because of the 170% increase in expectancy.
All arbitrary r/r strategies under-performed the non-arbitrary exit strategy by about 50% ROE.
EDIT
Now increasing both the reward (target) and increasing risk (stop) while keeping the ratio at 1:1
2x 1:1 68% win $161 expectancy 80 trades
3x 1:1 65% win $198 expectancy 66 trades
4x 1:1 53% win $49 expectancy 55 trades
don't think I need to do 5x...
Doubling and tripling the target and stop out-performed the 1:2 ratio on about the same amount of trades by 15% and 16% ROE respectively. Average risk was the same on 2x vs 1:2 ratio of course however tripling the target and stop increased average loser by 36%. For only a 1% gain in ROE, increasing target and stop is not worth the risk in this case.