with no trading system there is no use for risk/reward ratio, also there is no use of entry/exit setups,
with no trading system there is no use for any trading tool.
I’m struggling to not get involved, but here I go…
I think Banker is trying to make the entries “random” to prove that a specific concept can be applied to any system.
So by randomizing his entries he can say that regardless of what system you use, then …etc.
delete post
Keep it up, Banker928.
I understand the point that you’re trying to prove.
Van Tharp used random entriesin his book Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom and came up with a profitable system. Placing your stops (TP and SL) is just as important, if not more so, than finding an entry.
yes, right use always a random entries and i assure to you a total financial freedom as a result 
Van use a random entries to prove how important the location of SL TP is, and that is what risk reward ratio stand for.
delete post
It would be hard to make it random. You dont have enough variables. Meaning to enter at a certain time on a certain pair is not random. Its calculated. Long or short you might be able to make than random but even that would be hard. So what you would have to do is get one set of data then make the EA do the exact opposite and see the results. Just one set of data is not enough to prove anything. So you might be at this a long time. It is an interesting topic though.
delete post
That was not exactly what I meant. I dont know much about EA programing but I would figure even long or short would not be random. You have to tell the ea to go long or short. I am not sure though I could be wrong. Although the open a long and short entry at the same time with 2:1 R:R actually sound like a good idea. Interested to see what happens
delete post
Yes that would actually work in theory. But it will be a losing strategy. Due to the fact 1 trade will be stopped out everytime. The other if it wins would provide profit however when they both get stopped I fear will be greater and thus losses are certian. You might want to consider 3:1 R:R to offset this.
delete post
No see the 2:1 concept was not figured around a guaranteed loss on every trade. Even with 2:1 with a theoretical 50% win ratio based off a guaranteed loss you should still break even -spread. Thats why I suggested 3:1 because then in theory it should assume the loss with no problem thus ending in profit. I know you are not trying to make a strategy but if you are going to play a game at least play to win 
delete post
I decided not to chime in here because it is totally confusing.
Now I’m wondering why test your analysis on forex prices. Why not use data from a roulette table?
Always bet on red. Red wins, black looses and green is the spread. Garanteed to be random.
Stop loss and take profit are the same as risk / reward. Stop loss is how much you risk and take profit is your reward. How can they not be the same?
No see if your TP is hit 50% of the time out of 100 trades you would of had your TP hit 50 times and your SL hit 150 times (remember you are guaranteed 1 Stop being hit every trade). The other one will be hit 50% or 50 times. This is where 3:1 should off set that stop being hit every trade. You must also keep in mind by doing this you are also paying double the spread. So should still be in a loss. But if we factor out the spread then we should BE and that would confirm the myth.
Unless someone has a better way where human intervention is not possible. Then pin that up against your EA that does random long or shorts (which I still dont understand that) and random times. The problem with this would be not getting the same number of longs vs shorts in the same market environments. That would greatly affect the outcome
delete post
delete post
Genius my friend. Not sure why I didnt think of that. I just like to over complicate things I guess. Sounds good to me
delete post