The more right you are about your trade setup, the less likely you are to get filled

By extension, getting filled actually lowers the Bayesian probability that you are right

Should I sacrifice some RRR to get filled more often?
The eternal dilemma of contrarian trading

I haven't seen this tradeoff articulated on CT. Allow me to explore this, starting with an example of trading with limit orders:

Suppose that for a given setup, price hits target before it reaches invalidation 70% of the time. Great, right? But getting filled is not guaranteed.
Scenario 1: If 100 out of 100 limits get filled, expected hit rate is 70%
Scenario 2: If only 40 out of 100 limits get filled, expected hit rate is 25%

Both scenarios have 30 losses in expectation, but the hit rate in the first is >2x better simply because more trades were taken
Then we have RRR. Setting entries closer to invalidation increases RRR but decreases the probability of getting filled, since entries are further away from the current price. And as above, getting filled less often results in a lower hit rate. So RRR trades off against hit rate.
Where to place the limit orders though? The optimal place to enter maximizes the EV of the setup, where

EV = hitrate * avg_win_R + (1-hitrate) * avg_loss_R

So we want argmax(EV), and we can compute this by seeing how hitrate and avg_win_R affect the EV of the setup.
The optimum lies where the marginal +EV benefit from increased RRR is perfectly offset by the -EV cost of decreased hit rate. This is like optimizing output with MR=MC in economics - we want to find the best combination of two related variables. There may be multiple local optima
Of course, actually determining the optimal place to enter requires good data and quantitative analysis. It doesn't have to be in a spreadsheet; for instance it could be based on past charts logged in a journal.

Here's a real example where I completed this optimization.
This shows the tradeoff. As "Entry" gets closer to "Inval",
- the average win R tends to increase ("W:PR")
- the number of losses ("L") stays constant at 31
- but the number of trades taken decreases ("#")
- so the hit rate decreases, from a max of 67.7% to a min of 11.4%.
The highest EV in terms of R ("EVR") of 0.72R occurs not at the extremes where RRR or hitrate are maxed out but somewhere in the middle. It turns out that the extremes where RRR or hitrate were maxed out actually exhibited the lowest expected values.
In conclusion:
- Understand the tradeoff between RRR and hit rate. I talked about limit orders in this thread but a similar relationship applies to market entries too
- There are no easy answers here. Only the prospect of hard work collecting good data and learning from it.

💪
Tagging some people who I think would appreciate this:
@Captain_Kole1 @melodyofrhythm @ape_rture @realadamli @7ommyZero @voicelessFvoice

More from Trading

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
I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.


I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.

In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.

So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.

Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.