This is a trading thread, not a journal thread. I sim using methods outlined in many previous posts by other ET members. This is a discussion thread, open to everyone including you.
@padutrader each one of your posts makes little sense but in aggregate they painted a picture of someone who knows what he is doing but pretends to be a bumbling idiot. I understand where you are coming from because I do understand probability and statistics. You are OK.
My apology for missing your post & question. It took about 2,500 trades. Three different stocks. I don't trade futures. Take care.
Good Morning ironchef, 2500 trades and PNL is losses. And one year down the drain. Throw that strategy in the garbage and find something that makes ALOT of money. Forget learning how to trade, figure out how to get rich. Learning trading is a waste of time.
OK, I will throw it away if I can find one better. Cum PNL is up 100% after 2,500 trades. But only in sim. @Overnight reminded me, painfully, sim is bullshit.
everybody is at the beginning a bumbling idiot. the key is to recognise when some one is not an idiot and to learn from him. i have learnt from Brooks and his ideas about gaps are totally unique. Everyone says there are no gaps intraday but Brooks explains that it happens in intraday too. but a gap is an area where no trading takes place and a big trend bar is also a place where no /very little trading actually takes place. so a trend bar can be traded in exactly the same way, as you trade a gap, on the daily time frame. Brooks is practically impossible to understand and it took me two decades of trying to manage to do that
sim is not bullshit. bull shit is bullshit. sim is sim. it does not allow for slippage-which is not existent in the E-mini-except when news comes out. but the real problem with sim is not with sim. it is with you the trader. the threat of loss. in nature and by the way animals evolved, threat results in flight. flight to safety. in trading this means going with the least dangerous or least risky trade. which has the lowest probability. and so the highest probability of making loss. you can fight math but you cannot win and so most beginners lose. Brooks is the only one, known to me, who discusses math, and all people will scoff at the very idea that math rules something so "random" as markets.
complicated one are easy to understand. the simple ones take a long time. i am trading the simple one that works and which took me two decades to understand. incidentally Brooks went public with his ideas 20 years ago. it sounded right but to make money with it, to capitalize it took me a long time