Is it just me, or is such an if-then "rule" far too flimsy to trade with actual money? (It's amazing what "statistics" will tell you if you torture the numbers enough.) As for "martingaling" it, why would anyone increase their size when they are clearly out of sync? Isn't that like driving faster when you're lost?
ahh..I was right.. Thus comes the ranking that I post about....increase when in plus count like Revere... I am not so far off after all. sorry fellas' carry on..do not let me interrupt. A Revere count of >8 offers a clear edge in 21, mathematical-certainty based upon 3:2 payoff on BJ. 8 days lower does not mean a phucking thing.
your mathematical/statistical knowledge is superior to mine. i defer to you in this regard. however, i still stand by my original assessment that with proper position sizing, averaging in is a viable strategy. this is why guys like me, hire guys like you.
1.yes, i agree. 2. to answer your second question--- clearly out of sync based on what time frame? timing entries can be off, yet the trade can win due to averaging in. surf
The problem with No. 2 is that there is always a time frame somewhere that will support what you want to do and will "legitimize" your averaging down into oblivion. Therefore, my view is that if the trade is not working out in the time frame that generated your entry signal, then you are out of sync and should probably be out of that trade.
this is why position sizing relative to your risk capital is critical. plus knowing when to throw in the towel. i am not advocating averaging into oblivion. i am talking about controlled systematic entries to allow for timing errors combined with an absolute point where you bail. surf