My assumption is exactly the opposite: he can’t possibly have tested it at all (otherwise he would already know that it can’t work, and maybe even have some idea why).
5 Likes
Hi,
The thing is that we, as traders, need to take a systematic approach where each trade is independently taken and closed.
In the money management plan you describe, there is no market data-based evidence that can support your idea. It seems to be only for taking kind of revenge to make up for the loss.
Unfortunately, the market has nothing to do with our results and performance and we need to stick to the market data-based analysis.
Cheers
3 Likes
Yeah I think I get you mean. It seems like an average down kind of style money management which I don’t really like also. I prefer price become more and more expensive or vice versa to confirm that the trend indeed is valid.
The concept presented is intriguing. Nevertheless, it’s crucial to acknowledge the necessity of imposing a CAP on the risk-reward ratio at a certain point. Without such a cap, the likelihood of achieving higher risk-reward ratios becomes insane. My suggestion is to introduce a cap at a risk-reward ratio of 1:2.5.
Here’s a proposed sequential approach:
- Level 1 - 1:1
- Level 2 - 1:1.5
- Level 3 - 1:2.5
Should you encounter persistent losses at Level 3 (1:2.5), it might be prudent to just bite the bullet and abstain from further escalating the risk.
4 Likes
Well, I had 13 consecutive losses on 13 different currency pairs one day. I would suggest that it would be highly unlikely that an increasing T/P would be hit.
However, if you aim to use price action to determine where a T/P is likely to be met, you could place a S/L accordingly. In other words the critical set up is where to place the T/P, not the S/L.
So, with regret, I cannot see your idea as being anywhere near plausible.
best of luck.
2 Likes
Increasing r:r is similar to a novice’s gambling tactic in betting.
So in a horse race you start by laying a bet on a horse to win at odds of 2-1. If he loses, you bet on the horse in the next race which is at 5-1. If he loses you bet on a horse in the next race who is at 10-1. Pretty soon you are betting on a horse at 100-1. But seriously, how often will a horse which is a 100-1 rank outsider win a race?
I think this is a tactic which makes for a really fun afternoon at the races and I have dabbled with it when betting on the gee-gees online. But it’s not a serious money-earning plan.
5 Likes
I think this is still the martingale strategy. And how I so dislike this strategy. It’s moreso trying to revenge the market.
Just as I’ve come to learn here in this forum and I’ve come to agree 
that it’s unrealistic to have your rrr fixated at 1:2 let alone 1:3.
If you lost your first set, there’s no need to increase your rrr, just stick to your strategy and if the losses continues, just bow out of the market and take a chill pill.
That’s my 2 cents.
2 Likes
It seems to have plenty to do with mine.
2 Likes
No, I haven’t tried such an interesting strategy but it seems to be valuable, at least, according to the way you have described it.
I don’t know, for risks mitigation I utilize standard hedging and I’m enough with it. I presume it’s not sophisticated to the extent like the one you have shared and at the same time does its job greatly.
1 Like
It reminds me of Martingale method where you successively double bet sizes until you have a winning trade, while risk-reward ratio stays the same. Both approaches feature accumulation of losing trades, in case of classical Martingale losses could build up fast but you don’t “sacrifice” probability of winning the trade. In your approach, risk is fixed but due to stretching risk-reward ratio probability of winning the trade drops pretty fast.
In my view playing with risk management rules can yield better results when you know odds associated with the game, like coin toss game, cards, etc.
1 Like
I guess you are right, it’s better to be fully convinced of the trend’s strength, otherwise no one exclude repulsive pullbacks from support/resistance levels or dramatic trend reversal because of some events in the world arena. But sometimes traders tend to wait, wait, wait until it gets too late to enter the deal and they miss the opportunity to earn on the price’s gradual raise/drop.
1 Like
This idea seems like a modified version of a martingale system and would quickly blow you account.
2 Likes
You don’t want to decrease your chance of winning every time. It’d be better to keep a 1:1 (or lower) and just double the trade size on every loss. What will happen eventually is that the market may not pay a 5R trade for days or weeks, while the 1:1 is hit 5x more often.
2 Likes
If it is !! Just need to find out that the incorrect things what i had taken. For me — I’ll not increase RRR. Thks.
1 Like
Risk management is very important in trading in order to reduce risk. I see the presentation by @despatrick22 as a combination of existing techniques. So it is hoped that it can minimize risks in dynamic trading. I add to remain optimal in trading analysis, with the aim of risk management running well.
1 Like
Depends completely on your leverage.
If you are using low leverage, sure you can easily do it depending on the asset.
Bitcoin, sure. Some altcoin, probably not.
Assuming you catch the liquidations perfectly and don’t over-invest. That would also depend on the expirations of your leverage among other factors.
2 Likes
Hi!
So i think there’s a weakness in the part of probabilities
If you have a trade 1:1 (ignoring other circumstances), you will have 50% chances to win
So, what happens if you do 1:2? The chances to win (again ignoring any other circumstances) are 33%
What if you loose again? 1:3 will be 25% chances to win
As you can see the more you increase the gap between the SL and the TP its directly proporcional to the porcentaje of winning and loosing rate
How I calculated the probability? Its just the winning rate divided on the total of possible scenarios 1:1 means 1÷2 because there are two scenarios.
2 Likes
So I started trading probabilities… but I’m too scared to use 1:1 or higher so I start with a 1:0.8, then a 1:0.25, and another 1:0.25: Trading probabilities
2 Likes
No, this is martingale.
This particular type of trading is frowned upon for good reason. The probabilities of each R:R vary greatly. This is betting more than anything, I wouldn’t even call this trading. Especially if you are watching the same time frames throughout.
You’d end up having three different strategies.
Example:
Strategy 1 fails
Strategy 2 fails
Strategy 3 passes
It’s redundant. If you can’t trade your first strategy profitably why attempt your second strategy to recoup your losses. When you could easily just avoid your first losing strategy.
Test your three strategies, provided you actually have three. And if they are profitable on paper. Then trade each of them in your market independently. But don’t use one good strategy to make up for a bad strategy and vise versa. It’s redundant and a fallacy.
Trading is about statistics, charting, psychology, and demand.
1 Like
Your idea of increasing the risk-to-reward ratio after each loss is intriguing and could help recoup losses, but it’s important to be cautious of potential continuous losing streaks that may lead to significant risk exposure and added pressure on your trades.