I can’t say as I agree with the logic that supports this plan. You need to put a stake on both pairs, when you could have doubled your stake and doubled your stop loss amount to effectively achieve the same reward to risk ratio. If this were supported by a rigorous comparison of examples I’d be keen to participate in a discussion, but to me it smacks of indecision, but wanting to participate, so a half - hearted commitment to a decision. I’m keen to see any empirical or mathematical statistical analysis of why this is better than one or t’other.
Hedging comes from the conviction that the most dangerous thing that happens in trading is losing trades. This is a mistake - the losing trades are just the purchase price of the winning trades. Trying to eliminate the losing trades means you will end up eliminating the winning trades. So you will make no money.
Losing trades are not mistakes or poor execution or bad TA.
I don’t agree with hedging at all. It stems from a lack of emotional control and a lack of proper planning and analysis. If you’re a good trader, you know what you’re doing and there’s no need to hedge your trades. Hedging comes from uncertainty and fear.
You could trade both those pairs together as in general, and IMO, they both move two price action trends in the same direction on the 1hr chart, which means you could try scalping for your rewards.
My pro friend - for decades - does exactly that for most major pairs. best of luck.