I could DM you the reason. Dont want to waste other’s time.
I ran few intraday strategies by looking at Itjegan and optionables on youtube in paper trade on sensibull, and i found the P.O.P & Risk to Reward to be horrible! (they mentioned that in the videos) anyhow this makes them pretty useless to apply in current time. These strategies only work if you can predict the market direction before hand, else for me weekly strangles are only things that are working in options that too they cannot beat Mutual Fund returns which is my benchmark instead of FD.
if anyone has a proven strategy that work even if it yields low returns with a good P.O.P for intra-day, i am all ears
1 Like
Requesting Everyone not to fight over this topic. The question is not whether trading is profitable or not, the actual question is whether you want to make money from trading or not , and able to see trading as your business.
Trading is like golf (success rate is very low) or any other sports, almost every indian play cricket but only 11 to 20 player selected for National cricket team & some in IPL.
Money is involved everywhere. You spend almost 13 to 15 years in education to get a job which is also not guaranteed.
the problem is not TA, your strategy or what probability say, Its YOU & your ability to manage emotion.
So final word is day trading is profitable but not for everyone. its the most difficult job in the world.
There is no such thing as proven strategy.
You can use your own strategy after backtesting on bull bear & sideways market. It can be anything but you have to belived on your strategy (after backtesting) blindly that its work. you have to execute trade without hesitation every time your strategy provide entry exit signal.
Risk mangement is the holy grail. study on this to survive in trading.
Hold & add to winning position is key to make big money in trading without taking big risk. But its the most difficult part.
Ability to manage yourself (mainly Emotions, anger, fear, greed) is the only way to Trading for a living.
1 Like
99% don’t lose because they have inferior psychology. Even most algo trading accounts lose money where there is no role of psychology . All algo strategies lose their edge eventually as market conditions change and donate back to market what they made previously plus fees.
An average trader assumes that just by improving his psychology he will be profitable. This assumes that fault lies in psychology but this assumption is wrong.
Adding to winner (Pyramiding) can never beat Buy and Hold in stocks. But in commodities, this is the key 
.
I totally disagree that every person can make money with Buy and Hold, If buy and hold is that easy why 90% people still losing money? Reality is you are smart enough to do swing trading or holding but there are a lot of people who don’t even know stock market exists. So to those people you are a gambler like you tell option traders that we are gamblers, But reality is like you are smart enough to develop a system that works for you like wise option trading also has a complete system then it becomes a business so there are people who are doing it and you are just playing blind folding yourself and don’t want to believe that there are more smarter people than you are!
" The media is full of stories of investors and employees who held on to stocks like Amazon, Google, and Tesla. But the performance of most stocks is a far cry from these exceptional successes.
Across the 25,967 stocks listed in the U.S. from 1926 to 2016, the most common one-decade buy-and-hold return was -100%. The conventional wisdom on long-term compounding rarely applies to concentrated stock positions — the risk of capital destruction is too high."
90% those who are loosing money are in f&0…not buy and hold according to sebi
Hi all people here, I have a question for you ,can you help?
If a stock is at 100 then which price it is more likely to hit next : 99 or 103?
What do you think?
3 Likes
Sure! Generally, if a stock is at 100, it’s more likely to hit 99 next than 103. That’s because stocks often move in smaller steps, and a drop to 99 is a smaller move than a rise to 103. However, predicting stock prices is tricky and depends on many factors, so nothing is certain in the stock market!
ChatGPT Zindabad:
If a stock is at 100 then which price it is more likely to hit next : 99 or 103?
ChatGPT
Predicting the next price movement of a stock is inherently uncertain and influenced by many factors, including market conditions, company performance, and investor sentiment. However, if we were to consider a simplistic view without any other information, a stock at 100 might be more likely to hit 99 next, as it would only need a slight decrease, whereas reaching 103 would require a more significant increase.
If a stock’s at 100, the next likely stop is 99. It’s like stepping down a stair rather than jumping up two steps. But hey, in the stock market, surprises happen more often than not, so keep an eye out.
Yes that’s true. This is what some casually call law of proximity which says that a stock will hit a price that is closer to current price than the distant one .
For this reason , it is impossible to develop risk-reward strategies like 1:2 and 1:3. Since your SL is always closer to Entry Price than TP , your SL will be always hit much more than your Target Price.
For a 1:1 strategy your SL will hit 50% times and you will be net loser due to brokerage and other charges.
For a 1:2 strategy your SL will hit around 70% and you will lose even bigger.
For a 1:4 or 1:5 strategy your stop loss will hit 90% of times.
Bottomline is no way money can be made if one is doing 1:2 or 1:3 because of law of proximity.
I am writing this because too many YT shorts on my timeline are pretending that you can make money trading if you are right 50% of time and have RR of 1:2
2 Likes
Then can we try 2:1 or 3:1 ?
1 Like
Not true.
Wins and losses adjust based on which is closer yes. So at 1:1 we can expect around 50% win rate after large sample of random trades. A bit less because of execution costs.
When we take entries with edge, not random, then things shift a bit. We can get say 60% win rate at 1:1. I have a system like that. But i don’t take it at 1:1 because its worse. Instead i reduce my win rate and increase my avg win and it does much better.
Where to keep stops and where to take not-stop-exits, is something to be tested. Different systems will have different optimal areas.
We will need 80% Win Rate to profitable with 2:1 . Even Technical Analyst gurus don’t promise that when selling their premium courses to us.
That is the exact problem. When backtested Technical analysis is no better than Coin Flip when it comes to outcome. Any ‘edge’ generated using TA is no better than random.
Assuming no transaction cost, one of them has to be profitable. Either it’s 1:2 or 2:1.
Fno is a zero sum game.
1 Like