It is similar to risk-reward. It is derived using the below formula:
Profit Factor = Total Profit by winning trades / Total loss by losing trades
Fact - A trading system above 1.2 PF is good if it scores well with other factors.
(2/n)
4 factors to measure the performance of a trading system:
1 - Accuracy
There is no such thing as 90% Accuracy without compromising on other factors (like profit factor, etc)
Fact - A good trading system will have only 35-60% accuracy without compromising other factors.
(1/n)
It is similar to risk-reward. It is derived using the below formula:
Profit Factor = Total Profit by winning trades / Total loss by losing trades
Fact - A trading system above 1.2 PF is good if it scores well with other factors.
(2/n)
The maximum drawdown also plays a vital role psychologically while picking a trading system.
Fact - Maximum Drawdown in any trading system should not exceed 20%. I suggest picking only the techniques which have less than 10% maximum drawdown.
(3/n)
We all feel bad even if we lose only Rs.1,000 in a trade. Because it is not only about the money, it is emotionally difficult to accept the failure.
Fact - A good trading system will have less than 15 consecutive losing trades.
(4/n)
10 Profitable Intraday Trading Systems, which are backtested against 10-years of Banknifty Historical Data!
(n/n)
https://t.co/BuUie17Ish
More from Indrazith Shantharaj
More from Stockslearnings
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
