i think 1:1 is a good point: because you are getting in after the breakout is 'confirmed ' ,you have to accept a little less reward so 1:2 is not advisable
“Historical records indicate purchasing the S&P 500 has generally produced positive returns on a long enough time frame.” That’s what your Edward Jones advisor would say *wink wink*
why don't you show us? i did not say this was the best ,this is undoubtedly the simplest. after spending ten years , many more tears and still not understanding many strategies, this is like a breath of fresh air.
yes a up 1-2-3 can, before you can say 123, become a down 1-2-3. But you can see it, there is no ambiguity, and it takes exactly 10 seconds to learn the strategy. i am going to teach this strategy to my wife,who is going to retire in 5 years, so she can take care of yourself financially.
Amen This is absolutely the simplest and it is basic market structure I knew of this strategy ten years ago.But i did not recognise it's versatility. now i put entry orders, both on the buy and sell, very often,because if the market is swinging the market has to go in one direction!
in the entire yellow box, the yellow arrow shows the only place where the strategy "does not work", where a sell 1-2-3 triggers. but it gives a rr of 1:1 and then a buy 1-2-3 triggers. in the yellow box there is NO FAILURE OF THE SETUP,THERE IS NO PLACE WHERE IT DOES NOT WORK. more importantly there is no ambiguity about what your trade should be. in my 25 years of trading i have not see a better less ambiguous strategy. In trading this is huge:because in trading, confidence in your trade is everything; i knew this strategy 25 years ago but i did not realise the diamond in my hand.so i am not surprised when there are many who are making the same mistake