I certainly don't have the ultimate strategy because I believe the notion is nonsensical. My point was that, although many people may not realise it, if you are more concerned about one than the other then you don't understand the relationship between the two.
Evidently, you have found the ideal balance most suited to you and the markets you trade. I think that's wonderful.
Gabfly1 (intresting name btw) If youâre asking while Iâm trading then neither For if either trouble me â I am living in the past I must always trade in the present â while keeping an eye toward the future If youâre asking about off hours Itâs a toss up â if either the losses too great, and / or the misses too often â because I held an opinion RN
Why on earth would you be troubled by a decent move that didnt register in your system. I could go to the top gainers and losers every single day and find massive moves, which I was not in on. It is a totally new ballgame though if your system told you to do something and you didnt follow the rules, and then missed a move, that is worse than a loss in my book, as losses are inevitable with any trading method.
This is the difference between Type I and Type II errors, between false positives and false negatives. The distinction was first, ARAIK, articulated by William James, in his famouse lecture "The Will to Believe," and has been the subject of much debate and analysis since. The relative costs are situation dependent, but the analysis is tractable under common Bayesian statistical approaches.
I'm still developing as a screen trader. I focused on automated stuff for years but went to the screen to get further education... my next evolution has to be to get past worrying about losses, my Risk/Reward is about 1:3 and the success rate is very high.. losses [getting stopped out] should not bother me at all really. "It's not whether I win or lose, it's whether I lose" seems to plague me a bit..