are you paying or earning the spread?
1) If you toss a coin at 10:30 every day, enter long on heads, short on tails. Enter the E-mini S&P with a 5 point stop & 5 point target. What will the win rate be ?
2) If you roll a dice at 10:30 every day, enter long on 1 & 4, short on 2,3,5,6, with a 5 point stop & 5 point target. What will the win rate be ?
3) If you toss a coin at 10:30 every day, enter long on heads, short on tails. Enter the E-mini S&P with a 2 point stop & 4 point target. What will the win rate be ?
LOL !
Aren't smart-arses supposed to derail threads after they have actually gone somewhere.
Mods - can you close this thread please ?
I officially give up with this site.
1.A bit less than 50%
2.A bit less than 50%
3.A bit less than 33%
Nothing to do with being a smart ****; it makes an absolutely massive difference.
Not sure if it will make a massive difference to the win rate as 5pts on ES = 20 ticks.
Potentially 11:9 ratio then... that's a big edge
%win rate = (100 / (profit ticks + stop loss ticks)) x stop loss ticks
One of his admirer Zupcon suggested that this formula presents the EXPECTANCY If you want, we could dive in to that but in no way this formula is the expectancy!
If the test for HIV was 99% accurate (that is to say, it is 99% likely to give the correct diagnosis), and HIV were to affect 1 in 10,000 people, would the test be worth doing?
EDIT: I should say, would the test be worth doing on the 4 million people living in our fictional country (probs in Africa)
You really are a stupid **** arnt you
In fact so ****in stupid, you cant actually read or comprehend the simplest of sentences. I'll say it again numb nuts, the win rate is inversely proportional to R/R, the expectancy may or may not improve with R/R but only in the unlikely event someone with your **** for brains actually had an edge. In a random system the expectancy will remain constant
Is that clear enough for you ?
You really are a stupid **** arnt you
In fact so ****in stupid, you cant actually read or comprehend the simplest of sentences. I'll say it again numb nuts, the win rate is inversely proportional to R/R, the expectancy may or may not improve with R/R but only in the unlikely event someone with your **** for brains actually had an edge. In a random system the expectancy will remain constant
Is that clear enough for you ?
Actually it doesn't matter how many people you do it on really, but it helps you think it out.
It seems no-one found it as interesting as I did at uni anyway!
lol, that was the best post I've read in ages. Much more fun than trying to start my own argument.
Here's an easy but interesting one:
If the test for HIV was 99% accurate (that is to say, it is 99% likely to give the correct diagnosis), and HIV were to affect 1 in 10,000 people, would the test be worth doing?
EDIT: I should say, would the test be worth doing on the 4 million people living in our fictional country (probs in Africa)