How can you quantize risk if you have more than one variable that isn’t constant when you trade? Why even risk anything if 90% of the time you falsely extrapolate the odds? Good traders try to maximize the odds of winning right? Allowing time to manipulate the actual risk you are taking by reducing your odds seems preposterous to me now.
After toying with this idea that we do not accurately quantize the risk we are subjecting our trading accounts with… I now believe I am getting closer to shedding light on how to win more trades while thus reducing risk as well as losses by trading using probability and subjecting each trade to the same duration of time or expiration date…
From what I have concluded, most strategies do not account for the total time spent in a single trade. And most trades, unless an expiration date is chosen, take random amounts of time to either lose or win. It takes time for the market to move, so therefore less time would generally mean less chance of the market moving farther away from the point of entry. Follow me so far?
Here is an example:
Say you take two different trades, one will be called trade A and the other called trade B for simplicity. Both trades are placed at the exact same time, using the same currency pair. Trade A is placed long while trade b is placed short. After a period of time passes you end up closing out of trade A, but you leave trade B open. Another period of time passes and you close out of trade B. Assuming the only difference in the two trades was time and direction (long or short), which trade took on more risk? Same lot size per trade, same stop loss, same take profit. Let’s say you where able to close out of each position before getting stopped out or hitting a take profit.
Whether you win or lose the trade, logically wouldn’t it seem like the longer you hold onto a trade, the more risk you are taking (without changing the stop to break even if the trade was profitable)? Direction shouldn’t greatly effect risk as much as time does because direction is constantly changing (volatility) where as the way we read time never changes (that’s why we should make time constant because it only progresses linearly forward, not forward and backward). Although I do wonder, which direction has a higher chance of winning historically speaking and by terms of odds.
I’m trying to minimize my risk to gain percentage not just in how much I lose or win, but also by limiting the effect of the market on my portfolio. The problem is I only see two answers. Be in the market for a shorter period of time (subject to less volatility), trade with very few units (less of an impact on the account balance when trade goes down down or up up), or a third unlikely answer… Win every trade (would only work because as the account rises, risk would decrease If you always only traded one lot size and had the exact same TP and SL for each trade).
What do you guys think?
It’s hard for me to accurately quantize risk when I’m subjecting each trade to win or lose, but i don’t give the trade a defined period of time to win or lose, I just let it go till I get stopped or until I hit TP. Doesn’t this traditional approach seem flawed to you?