I spoke with someone recently about this experiment and his view is it's same as betting on red or black in roulette, can someone explain what he may be saying as I have no experience playing roulette.
Evidently you didn't get the memo - consistently profitable trading can't be done Personally..., I'm glad you missed it Good Job Sir RN
I don't see how your strategy has anything to do with roulette. The numbers don't match at all. Betting black or red in roulette would give you a 47.4% win percentage with a 1:1 payout. Obviously a losing proposition. Your strategy has a 41.4% win percentage with a huge payout (Avg win/Avg loss). Totally different.
Maybe, but that still wouldn't match what you are doing imo. Betting strategy always has to do with exploiting winning/losing streaks using position sizing. And you just trade 1 contract straight up every time. So you don't use any betting strategy.
Position sizing remains the same, but is increased if a losing trade is greater in point value , which would be similar to increasing bets after a loss, like in Martingale.
Not sure I understand. Do you mean that after a loss your total account size drops and therefore the next 1 contract trade is a bigger bet relative to the account size ?
If an average loss is -5pts and then next loss comes in at -10 pts, that could be compared to doubling your next stake after a loss in Martingale strategy. I don't know, he didn't explain. Perhaps he meant that average reward could shrink in time, making it similar to 1:1 payout in R&B betting.
@romik, Did you keep this experiment going? If so do you mind sharing the summary stats for month end May? Thanks in anticipation.