Skippy, the Three Stooges were far more entertaining and made more sense than your continually inane gaseous emissions.
Look here Mr swimmer you guys make me laugh..you post as if you are "experts"..whereas anyone with any bit of trading experience can see that you lot are the farthest thing from an expert you will ever see..typical "text book traders"
Make sure you iron your pin stripped suit and pink shirt Mr slick..but don't forget to take them off first..
I try really hard not to be rude with the idiots I encounter here, but you are so classic an example of a fool who believes all he reads that I am compelled to ignore that. Let us assume a 2:1 R:R and a 50% win rate, just the odds of a coin toss over time, and a win is 2 points, so a loss is 1. I can profit at 34% win rate, but let's just take 50-50. 5 trades a day. Win 2.5X2X$50=$250 Lose 2.5X1X$50=$125 Profit- $125 Comms- $14 Nett profit- $111 2 trades a day. Win 1X2X$50=$100 Lose 1X1X$50=$50 Profit=$50 Comms-$5.60 Nett profit- $44.40 If you had a 10K account, would you like to win $111 a day or $44.40? Were you born stupid or did your mother drop you on your head when you were a baby?
You can't do this type of analysis simply because your win rates are not going to be constant. You have to build in an extra margin of error. If you knew that you are going to always get this type of returns just borrow and leverage up to become a billionaire.
And you call me stupid.. Tell you what Mr tharposucker..why don't you post a screen shot of your 5 trades..or any trade you done for that matter..as..you are like the rest of them..knows everything about nothing..you lot are so predictable..bigshot traders who haven't 2 cents to rub together.. Prove me wrong..I dare you..and the other stooges also
You are referring to runs in probability, I'm referring to a win rate over a large number of trades. I agree it is not a constant. My sole objection to the validity of back testing is that it is a test that is run over a subset of trades over history. History today is a subset of the history that encompasses the next 500 or 1000 years, so the assumption that a backtest is empirical is a fallacy. It is empirical only to the extent that history until now is empirical. It isn't, since time doesn't stop. Nevertheless, without assuming an absolute, my ILLUSTRATION serves to demolish the argument that commissions should be an over-riding consideration. My point was solely that if you make a profit, comms are the cost of doing business. You may be a better trader than I am, I have 40 years experience in the corporate/business world and I do understand what the cost of doing business is. Let's not get silly over this.