I'm not sure how I would even calculate this. Do we call each scale in and scale out its own trade, or the whole position from start to finish? And what about option contracts when I'm building in on different strikes and expirations? Never mind that I might have options and shares on as many as 10-12 symbols at any given time with scales ins and outs overlapping across many of them. Best I could offer is limiting it to a single symbol and counting consecutive trades. I've never kept track, but probably my longest on a single symbol would have been SQ. Rode it up with probably 6-8 rolls over a few months followed by a spike in the price I traded with straddles and strangles--8 different contracts in total...of which only the high strike call expired OTM ending the streak. So probably 14-ish....it wouldn't be a particularly uncommon event trading a breakout like that to have a run of 12 straight trades--and really, I would consider all of the legs collectively as The Trade rather than each individually.
Ha ha, precisely this train of thought is the greatest misinterpretation of probability theory in gambling and trading markets alike. If this were true, there would be no black swans and countless busted accounts. See Gambler's fallacy. LOL
I worked like that many years ago too. Until I found it more logical to reverse the whole thing. I started to watch the moves intraday and then tried to catch the max out of it. At the same time I tried to limit he numbers of my trades to the strict minimum: just the good entries and exits and skip all the rest. It was a long journey with a lot of questions (why did i miss this one, why was I too early, why I was too late, why did I not see this was a signal to skip...) I finally managed to stabilize the whole thing and built a system that works (more or less) in all markets... And all stats became automatically good as a result. So I don't start from good R/R or anything else. For instance yesterday was an easy day in the ES and it worked perfectly: The chart is made in a 15 min timeframe become it fits best on the site, not because I use that timeframe.
well, I know a chinese future trader, he has traded stock index future for 4 years by now, his win-rate is 95% above, 2-3 tradings per a week, 10,000,000 RMB above income every year
There's a lot of "average" traders here who thinks they are hotshots. Which is why I stop listening to this forum a long time ago.
Play roulette with any of the many "systems" and you see long winning streaks happen all the time as well as long losing streaks. Roulette being a game with close to a 50% win rate.
Yep, funny how the guys who have journals can't achieve this but all these guys with no live calls always seem to manage the miraculous. Sorry there was one guy, 'Surf', he had numerous spectacular calls, every one a winner. Surf was also an ET oldtimer and NEVER talked BS! There ya go...
Completely wrong. He even managed to make 6 calls in a row that were all wrong. Check his postings. He was so "good" that he even once wiped out a fund where many people lost big amounts of money. On ET someone even mentioned that one of the clients commited suicide because of the losses. All this as explained extensively on ET and can be checked. He was one of the "guys who have journals can't achieve this but all these guys with no live calls always seem to manage the miraculous." And he caught you, that is clear. He also had a lot of aliases, probable the highest number from all ET posters. Maybe you are another alias from him... remember this one? Am I ready to go live? Posted by the mickey: Surf's gold journal many many moons ago was a carbon copy nearly of the YM short fiasco (Surf Report) But Surf knows no humiliation and learnt no lessons. If he is now trading bitcoin with real money, I would assume two things, one, he doesn't want to hear ET criticism and, two, he will soon be sleeping in the street.
The problem is that so much stupid and/or unbelievable things are posted on ET that it becomes difficult to see the difference between a real opinion and satire. That's why I always add a when it is satire.