I used the term "balance of probability." See the above post in my response to Xspurt. As for the rest, you and I have run in circles time and again over the years. I have answered similar questions from you very plainly in the past, and I have little inclination to do so again, since my previous attempts obviously didn't take.
Thanks for the answer - I kinda know where you are coming from. I just don't have a mathematical approach because I'm soon out of my depth there so I rely on what I am good at and that is discovering visual relationships that work. Two trading friends (a quant prof and a NASA rocket scientist) find that the math behind what I do is perfectly structured. Perhaps there is more than one way to skin this cat I certainly am not smart enough to think my way is the way or the only way, that everyone else is wrong or everything that can be discovered had been discovered: it's just my way and it sure is different.
You are misusing the term. The slightest tip implies above 50/50 therein, when dealing with financial instruments, could be measured, quantified and exploited. However, we all know that these things can't be. surf
Were they referring to the math behind the derivation of your setups, or the probability of the outcomes of those setups?
I am using the term because, without special knowledge of an outcome, it is as close as you can hope to get. It lends itself better to the market environment than any implication of numeric specificity. Your issue is that you are all or nothing, whereas most of life happens somewhere in between.