Sorry ... I didn't realize it at the time but went back and checked and voila ! As for being "eagle eyed" ... I'm actually quite interested in this journal and am trying to do the same thing with my own trading so ... Good luck Allen !
Well this all started because someone said it wasn't a good representation without including commissions, so I had to go back and revise and I also rounded off to whole numbers. I'd prefer not to include commission but at the end of the day it's not going to be material based on my trading method. I was trying to prove a point that this type of return is doable, but the eagle eyes, skeptics, and naysayers decided to drill down rather than look at the big picture. Either way, it's fine with me. If I make the winning trades the numbers will speak for themselves. With respect to paper trading (which I'm not doing here), I use Ninja and it is a very conservative simulator. It is almost a given that price will have to trade through limits to get a fill whereby when I trade those same entries in a cash account, my fills don't always have to trade through limits. In other words, my results would be worse if I was paper trading with Ninja. I understand there are simulators that give fill based on volume or even touching which is very unrealistic. At this point, I will be less sloppy but stick to the same format for weekly results. I also try my hardest to post the entries and exits ASAP but that is a real challenge since ET has a 60 second time lock after one makes a post and some of these trades are closed within a minute. But if anyone wants to know the exact times of exits/entires, I'll accomdate, although I thinks that's unnecessary for the purposes of this experiment. Thanks for following the journal.