Personally, I'm inclined to agree. It may not be universal, but I think that for a lot of people less can be more. A brief video on picking your spots, borrowed from another thread: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gdn-e5SsdKc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gdn-e5SsdKc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Again, I recognize that one size does not fit all. Further, different respondents are invariably coming from different points along the frequency/reliability continuum.
Trade efficiency is key to my style - I would rather have 1 trade per day (100% efficient trading) that meets my goals than the sum of 20. Because in the 20 there will be losers so efficiency goes down to 60% , 70% or so and commissions are higher and my working capital is stretched thinner. Even if you can scan hundreds of stocks for every tick, you will always be missing out on something somewhere, so I don't worry about it. I just focus on my basket and cherry pick. It will drive you crazy to worry about what you might be missing - then you start chasing stocks and we all know which house that will land your career. Seriously, why make this harder than it needs to be by loosening up?
Fair enough. Having multiple profitable methods is great insurance. No argument there. (Although, perhaps unfortunately, I am committed to a singular type of setup that I have been whittling at for a while now. Fortunately, the wheels are still intact.) Again, we may have a disconnect. I was referring to "method" in the singular and the frequency/reliability tradeoff for that given method. Therefore, the question would apply to each of your methods individually rather than all of them collectively.
I'll go for more setups in that case (details )... more setups will help me optimize the method based on trade statistics. I can even change over setups depending upon market conditions.
Perhaps you should learn to properly put in words what you are thinking then, though you probably got confused since it was not your typical three word trolling response. Asking whether or not you would like more, or fewer setups to improve a system with everything else being equal is not even close to the same as asking whether or not you would like to take fewer setups with a higher probability of winning or more setups with a lower probability of winning.
Perhaps those respondents took the time to interpret the question correctly, and responded according to their preference. You have good reason to be scared. Couldn't quite get past the first page, could you? Your unambiguous animosity obviously stems from your differing political views, as evidenced in the P&R forum. Perhaps you should try to exercise some restraint rather than letting your expression-seeking rage leak elsewhere. A political diaper may be just the thing for you. Goodbye, Hello.
Please feel free to point out exactly where you clarified your stupid question before i pointed out to you just how ridiculous your question was. You made a specific point of saying ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, and never said anything about taking fewer set ups based on higher probability or anything like that until after i posted.
Read the thread title. Read my first post in this thread. Read Indahook's post, which was the second post in this thread, where he refers to the statistics of the current system. It is because I did not wish to get into system specifics that I wrote ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL. It is because I did not want someone to simply say "I want more reliability and more frequency" that I wrote ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL. I wanted IMPROVEMENT to be chosen by the respondents in this particular poll as being EITHER a matter of enhanced reliability OR enhanced frequency. EITHER a tightening OR a loosening. I wanted to home in on a VERY SPECIFIC TRADEOFF. Look for those key words in the initial post. It seems that most people managed to understand what I was asking, if not at first, then with a bit of clarification on my part. As for my clarifying posts before I had to go remedial on you: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2736496#post2736496 http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2736534#post2736534 I have had enough of your pseudo-pedantry. Save it for that other forum.
Once again I read all three of those and at no place in any of those questions does it say anything about taking fewer setups for higher probability or vice versa. Un the 2 links you have provided in neither one dpo you clarifiy that you meant more setups, with a lower probability or vice versa, and infact you do clearly repeat the "all else being equal" non sense. And btw my beating up on you here has nothing to do with politics, but i do feel the need to point out the stupidity of an internet troll
Yes, your posts certainly do seem to speak for themselves. As an aside, any relation to the late Steelers Baby? Your first post comes 7 days after his last post. Fascinating, don't you think?