A QUESTION ABOUT STOP WIN/LOSS

[ScoobyDoo]

ANy time I have seen a Stop Loss or Win Loss mentioned, the writer always says for example, "Stop after winning 10% or after losing 20% of your bank roll."

Here's the question:

Why is the Stop Loss anyways twice as large as the Stop Win? In my mind that means you have to win twice for every loss you have. Why not have it be even....One for one? It seems to make more sense...

Scooby doo

[VLS]

Hello Scooby,

These days I aim to win nothing more than a third 33% of small banks.

This gives a 3 wins per 1 loss ratio. It is fair in my opinion.

50% = dreamy.

100% per session... I can only wish...

[Jordan]

if a system is a consistent winner it doesn t have to have a stop loss or a win stop.

[ScoobyDoo]

Hi Victor,

What I meant was if you are going to have, say a 10% Stop Win then why not also have a 10% Stop Loss?? Why make the Stop Loss be be twice as much at the Stop Win?

[VLS]

Hello dear Scooby, remember there's a more complicated computation of win/loss ratio than simply minding "XYZ % stop-win and ZYX % stop-loss".

You have to chart your system's fluctuations in such a way that you account for the highest point (peak) and the lowest point (drawdown) of every session.

You then do a gaussian-bell distribution of it.

Take the most-common peak of fluctuation and the most common drawdown.

Your win-goal is the most common high-point your sessions have before sinking, your stop-loss is determined by the lowest-possible drawdown your bankroll needs to be in order to pass enough sessions for making the method profitable.

This isn't determined by the person, but rather by the method's specific fluctuation ranges.

Hope it helps,
Victor