It seems like it is your normal strategy, since this also was the reason why you blew your previous accounts, at least the ones that had a journal here.
Good Morning Amahrix, No, I did not know that the market is random and not random at the same time. I honesty do not know what are you talking about man. Let's just make money man. To be honest with you man, all bullshit aside. This is all I know. From the chart below, at this very moment in time, I am short at the arrow because the previous bars before my trades was pointing downward, if I enter short with the market pointing downwards, the probability of me making money is higher than the probability of me losing money. All I want to do now is manage the trade man and make some money. I really don't know all this market random theory stuff. And do not have time to try and figure it out. I want to make money. Now, I edit this message to show you that trade made $310 65 minutes. Was this trade lucky? Was the market random? Did Donald Trump cause this? What about Obama? What about the book Random Fool By Market or whatever its called? What about the noise and robots and the AI people? Maybe a monkey in the market making it go up or down or something. Who cares. Just make money man and be consistent making money. I have no answer for any of those questions. I do not have time to find answers for any of those questions. I have the full/part time job as well. Allllll I want to do is stare at the chart every morning and make good decisions to make money and prove to myself I can make money consistently. And record in my journal. This is all me and @padutrader want to do man. He and I do not care about the pony and clown show man.
I answered @SimpleMeLike question on other thread. Put your disgust of me aside for one minute and look at the picture I’m painting you: Your martingale strategy has a statistical expectation that is negative. (Or ANY strategy that has risk of ruin or negative statistical expectation) This means that law of large numbers is not in your favor and you will end up losing, over the long run. Therefore, we can conclude, that because your exposed to a ruinous event (account blowup; not only from martingale but any other factors that are ruinous that you’re not hedged against) means that all the earnings you’ve collected are due to 99.9% luck, if not 100% luck. If your father drives from Point A to Point B with no insurance, he is exposed to catastrophic financial loss if he 1) makes a mistake and causes a major accident or 2) gets hit by another uninsured motorist who cannot pay claims and medical bills to him then we can credit luck with the success of his trip between Point A to Point B. Why? Because if he got caught in a ruinous financial event, he’d be bankrupt, this is reckless risk taking. So we say.. wow he’s lucky he hasn’t gotten in an accident whilst driving without insurance. If your exposed to risk of ruin, or have long term negative statistical expectation, you’re collecting nickels in front of a steamroller, and you’re lucky you haven’t been run over (yet).... As far as @SimpleMeLike comment goes.. he is being overly simplistic (and I’m a simple man), but not naively over-simplistic. So the answer to his question is yes luck had a major role in it. Also, currencies can take wild values out of nowhere. Define your risk(at least at the portfolio level). A stop loss is not a defined risk strategy, but if you have no choice but to use stop loss on a trade, make sure the portfolio has a defined risk.
This seems a bit rough. All the gains come from luck, but the losses come from expectation? It goes both ways. Losses come from luck just as much as profits do. It is just "chance" in that sense. I think you are defining gains as luck and losses as probability? Or "law of large averages"...?