You can become extremely wealthy with only 10% winning trades. If you don't understand what I just typed, you can go ahead and put yourself in the 'I'm very stupid and will believe everything they say about trading without using my own brain' category.
You're the same guy who claimed to have this amazing system. Now you say backtesting is bullshit, well, if you say so. When trading liquid stocks, it doesn't matter what that one guy does or doesn't do, you are profiling behavior of the masses. A pointless debate this. Since you couldn't do it - no one can, amirite?
The past is DEFINITELY a guarantee of the future as long as people are trading and not AI. People make the same mistakes and take the same collective actions as they always have. Humans are predictable and that's why the mkts make the same types of moves all the time. It's the traders responsibility to learn how to interpret this.
You're a broken record son. How many times are you going to cut and paste this exact line on this website?
And yet some "traders" use technical analysis to exploit repeating patterns, and apparently become extraordinarily wealthy, driving fast cars and attracting beautiful women .. because they such savvy financial geniuses. Big swinging di*ks even. But, of course, TA does not work in backtest. Doubly useless out-of-sample. So .. while I agree that the past is no predictor of the future, perhaps something that fails in all timeframes and over all time periods in the past is probably not going to work in the future either. But then maybe you're a profitable TA trader. What's your shoe size?
In the original legend, many tried to achieve the Sangreal but failed. Some were worthy, some were not. Only he could sit in the Siege Perilous was worthy to attain it.
This. In my mind I have always seen it as "When in profit, hold it till you can't breath any more. If price moves against you, get the fuck out." Same thing really.
Which results in a large number of small losses, and a small number of large gains. If you're edge is zero, then you net to nothing, minus transaction costs. Of course, if you cut winners short and let losers run, with zero edge, you still net to nothing minus transaction cost. Perhaps the differentiator here is "how" one wants to fail, with no edge.