[tonymand]

Originally Posted by Mr Average

I guess that's the logical conclusion.

I suppose I was thinking that, assuming your basic/minimum requirements to take a trade are profitable in the long run (without whatever you might consider as additional confirmation), then you're assured of a positive outcome (well, as assured as you can be given past performance). And if that were the case, and you then weighted trades with additional confirmation with a higher percentage of risk, wouldn't that be a good thing?

For instance, say I identify my S&R zones and the dominant trend, wait for an IB or OB trigger, as well as divergence with stochs. That's my basic requirement and, based on past experience, I'm happy that this is enough to be profitable. However, say I also noticed that on the rare occasions when that basic set-up occurs in conjunction with one of the higher level fibs, the likelihood of success is even higher, wouldn't it be wise to put more behind those rare once-in-a-blue-moon trades when everything lines up?

I'm talking rubbish again, aren't I?

No you are not talking rubbish at all. I would simply say that the longer I go in this business the LESS I look to trade and the LESS trades I take. My profitability though has increased. My aim is exactly as jimmymac says a handful of trades per week. Of course your suggestion is rational just make sure you are not at any time diluting trade quality for the sake of trading