The question was NOT "Would you rather have more or fewer setups, all else being equal?" Rather, it was "If you were IMPROVING your method, would you seek more or fewer setups?" Read the thread title. The "all else being equal" part I referred to in my earlier post has more to do with NOT just having your cake and eating it too, by saying "I want more setups with greater reliability." We all do. But this is a thread about tradeoff. If you were looking to IMPROVE your method, which of the two criteria would you focus on more? See how that works? If my first post was not sufficiently clear, I apologize. However, my subsequent posts clarified on the matter of tradeoff. Where were you? What a coincidence. I also sometimes question your intelligence.
I was banned for some reason last October. I asked why, and was not given a reason. It certainly had nothing to do with marketing anything, as my post history will confirm. Thanks for asking.
No, it doesn't. But that's not what this thread is about. It's about the overriding direction you would prefer to take if you were looking to improve your own method of trading, whatever it may be.
I'll tell you one valuable thing: Increasing setups can help you diversify risk. You can have various setups like opening print, first hour reversals, last hour squeeze etc. and achieve great consistency. If that is not the case(which is highly unlikely), I will stick to fewer setups "all else being equal".
Just like poker, most hands should be thrown away, only play the best setups. Thats being a professional.
No offense but your perspective is rather myopic. The number of trades I make is inconsequential. So is the amount of commission I pay as are the trading stats (win/loss ratio, avg profit per trade, etc.). All I care about is a better bottom line. How I get there is irrelevant to me.
Okay, then that's your answer. In retrospect, I suppose I could have included a third option in the poll to accommodate your view for those respondents who share it. I just figured that people would have a preference given the choice in this hypothetical scenario. Hindsight, eh?
I agree. The opposite side of the coin is that if you have fewer setups with greater reliability, then you can leverage those trades better while maintaining a relatively Gravol-free equity curve. I imagine it is about finding the perceived middle ground providing the "best" combination of frequency and reliability. The proverbial "sweet spot." The question is, in which direction is that perceived optimal middle ground for you from where you are standing right now.
Practically thats very exceptional. Edges change over time and if you commit yourself to one method/theory you will have a very tough time when the edge disappears/diminishes.