Long USDCAD—week of December 3, 2017—with a ridiculously wide spread at the open! This journal will chronicle the results of trades made based on the principles of Ms. Mae’s Trade Strategy, an intraday approach to buying and selling foreign currency pairs online that relies on multiple simple moving average envelopes (MSMAE) to pinpoint precise entry and exit levels constituting high-probability opportunities. The approach is predicated on three major suppositions: There are very specific simple moving averages which accurately reflect the overall trajectory of price in various timeframes. Generally speaking, price is willing to distance itself only so far from these representative moving averages before it is compelled to return to more typical deviation levels. These “maximum degrees of separation” are referred to as “statistical support and resistance” levels, and are assumed to be controlled by market makers and automated trading algorithms. By correctly interpreting the relationships between actual trends, average price ranges, statistical support and resistance levels, horizontal support and resistance levels, and reoccurring price patterns, it is possible to forecast with unprecedented accuracy exactly when and where price is likely to reverse direction; enabling traders to enter long and short positions when the mathematical odds are very much in their favor. (I wish to see how close this strategy is able to come to achieving a 90% success rate [if at all] or perhaps even better.)
The pair has stalled at 1.2717, the market is dead right now, and I have no desire to sit around to manage this trade (i.e., exit the position if the trend turns against me), so I opted to lock in about 11 pips worth of profit now and walk away. I'll wait for the London session before I execute any additional trades.
Not trying to give you a hard time and I wish you the best of luck but how can you possibly throw the above statements around so easily if you have no sense of how this has performed in the past? You can't just declare something to be "high-probability" without any type of testing. Saying that you are highly confident in your discretionary methods is fine. Saying that you make a profit is fine. But throwing around trading terms that describe objective forms of measure without actually measuring anything is pointless. Pretend that you are a real-estate person talking to a potential buyer: You: I have a really big house in a great area!!!! Buyer: How many rooms in the house? You: I don't know. Buyer: How many square feet? You: I don't know. Buyer: So the area is great, how many reported burglaries on this street within the last 5 years? You: I don't know.
Short USDCHF from 0.9820. I wasn't planning to execute any additional trades before the London session, but this was technically about a near perfect setup, so I went ahead and pulled the trigger.
My sense is derived from the performance of earlier permutations of corresponding elements in a less refined state. Having achieved an 80% to 90% success rate in the past, I am hoping to do at least as well in the present given that this system appears to be an improvement on what I was doing before.
Okay great, even better than a backtest. Successful experience forward testing live. I have to admit that I am skeptical with such a high rate of success with a methodology based on moving averages but you appear to be discretionary so anything is possible. I had a 90% Success Rate selling SPY .10 Delta PUTs. It felt like free money until my strike got hit! Good luck.
Please not the dreaded "success rate" again. I've achieved 90% success rate for a long period many many years ago and lost money, think on that.