if i misunderstood either of you guys, i apologize. but here is my question: nitro is saying that if something is 50/50, no matter how you manage it, you can't get a positive expectancy out of it. uptik2000 is saying, even with LESS odds than 50/50 (30% win rate), you can have a very good expectancy. although uptik2000 is cutting his losers and letting his profits run, won't his # of losers just occur more frequently? now, i've read the van tharp book and i agree with it, but i also see points to what nitro is saying. if something is 50/50, how can you get a positive expectancy out of it? to see my point, look at the following two other posts: i don't want to sound like a broken record, but this is what i don't get. if you decrease the limit of your losers, won't the rate at which they occur increase proportionately? so, won't you just go nowhere?