If you're not using an automated trading system from entry to exit...doing the opposite of what you're doing will not help. Simply, you're a discretionary trader and you're still going to make the same trade errors or you're still going to be using a trading plan that's inadequate. For example, you've already made comments about trading "dead market". Continuing trading in the same "dead market" via doing something different isn't going to change your trade results. The solution should be obvious to you. If you have the ability to recognize a "dead market"...why would you plan to trade it anyway ? In fact, the question you should be answering is this. What's the performance of your trade strategy when markets are NOT dead ? If you say its profitable, easy solution is to trade markets that are NOT dead instead of trading the opposite in a dead market. I think the point you're trying to show is that the issue isn't about the number of losing trades by itself. We must also manage the type of loss (e.g. keep them small). Thus, if someone is using tight stops and its "normal" (accordingly to the historical results) to get consecutive small losing trades and then the few winning trades are much bigger than the losers... It's obvious the other issue at hand is the dollar amount of the losers versus the dollar amount of the winners along with the position size on the losers versus the position size on the winners. Trading results is a lot more to it than just looking at consecutive losers or consecutive winners. My point is that nobody can jump to conclusions about how adequate a trading plan is based upon the number of consecutive losers. Yet, based upon the fact that the way the OP started this thread and his concerns...those consecutive losers implies there is a problem with his trading plan and his other replies suggest the trading plan needs a lot of work prior to trading again. Thus, if its normal for you to have consecutive losing trades but still close out the trading day at a nice profit...I strongly doubt you're going to be starting a thread like this that was started by the OP.
Dbphoenix, there are thousands of ways to extract money from the market, so please do not make generalizations and assumptions about trading systems in general. Some systems have a 30% winning rate or less and generate a lot of consecutive losses followed by a few big winning trades. Others win more than 80% of the time but the risk/reward ratio is relatively small. You cannot say that this approach or that approach is bad or questionable simply because it does not suit your own trading style.
The winrate in and of itself is insufficient. There must also be a satisfactory P:L ratio. In any event, you closed out May at a loss, irrespective of costs and commissions. I suppose one can make a living in this way, but your trading plan is clearly not "robust". Trading style is irrelevant. It's "bad" if it isn't consistently profitable.
Not quite my friend. I started my thread on May 4 and it's only June 3, so the "month" is not over yet. http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?t=283827 Besides, I still have 3 open winning positions (140 pip profits so far and counting) that have erased more than 90% of the losses. It's not over until the Fat Lady sings, you should know that by now...
Even if they erase all the losses, you haven't made enough to pay your living expenses for May. And since you haven't provided your trading plan, there's no evidence that this isn't just paper money. But the course the OP follows is his choice, which may or may not include following the advice of someone who hasn't posted a trading plan.
Oh I see, so if a system is losing on May or December or April (even it's only a couple of dollars) it's a losing system because the trader "did not make enough to pay for his living expenses" that particular month. Are you for real ??? Anyway.
Better refer George Soros there quick then: "George has a terrible batting average - it's below 50% and possibly even below 30% - but when he wins, it's a grand slam" - Scott Bessent, former head of Soros Fund Management, London, quoted from Inside the House of Money by Drobny