Buy and hold mutual funds/indexes with a long time frame (20 years or more) is the only 100 percent winning strategy there is. That being said, I don't recall suggesting in this thread that one should buy and hold for 20 to 30 years. That is actually mismanagement of risk.
In your posting describing your father, you have basically made the point that PRM is the only edge in trading. The man traded a 100 percent winning strategy and made money, however did not maximimize these gains because he did not observe PRM. ---ie he held through crashes etc. ---
INCORRECT!!!!!!!!!!INCORRECT!!!!!!!!INCORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!INCORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!INCORRECT!!!!!!!!!!! How can you say "all are known"? Your IQ level keeps dropping with every absolute you say!
Yes...he held through crashes, but if he didn't hold through the crashes (by selling at the top) he would need a good ENTRY method to get back in at the bottom of the crash...ie edge in entry. So, to maximize returns the entry would still be very important in this example. Thank you for your time!
Money management is not an edge. It is crucial to survival and profitability, but it is not sufficient. You need BOTH a coherent trading method AND good risk management for any chance of long-term survival and possible prosperity.
This thread is completely silly. Money management doesn't save a losing strategy, it will just bleed to death SLOWER. I already explained this on page 5 or so...
The fact that more than 50 pages are filled with this nonsense shows the quality of the "best trading website". But it is in line with the self declared gurus like Surf. As apparently over 90% of all traders lose money, this amount of nonsense is just a confirmation that over 90% are losers. I even gave up to discuss about it.
I have a question, which Buy1Sell2 ignored earlier in another thread, if all 95% of losing traders were to always stick to their money management plan and at the same time reduce greatly leverage being used would the overall ratio of winning vs losing traders increase or decrease?
It's unlikely as the 95 percent that you describe would have money management skills that were deficient. --The amount of money lost and/or speed would decrease it would seem, but not the ratio of winners.