@ttpbots created that idea.
Though notice my comment on that video.
I believe this was your question:
What if in your calculation you would not only cut off trades at a certain deviation but assume the cut off trades to start with the same likelihood to hit the safety order levels as before? Example:
50 26 14 8 3 2 1 1
-----------------------------------------
25 13 7 4 2 1 1 0
15 8 4 2 1 1 0
10 5 3 1 1 0
5 3 1 0
# Cut-off deals
55 29 15 7 4 2 1 0
I’m not sure I understand it.
To be honest what I do now is to use the “allow deals to close in a loss” when an exit signal triggers. The trade off is better so you exit early when about to go potentially south.
as long as your statistics are biased to the upside then the balance can be positive in terms of profits still.
That’s the complete answer:
What if in your calculation you would not only cut off trades at a certain deviation but assume the cut off trades to start with the same likelihood to hit the safety order levels as before?
Example
50 26 14 8 3 2 1 1
------------------------------
25 13 7 4 2 1 1 0
15 8 4 2 1 1 0
10 5 3 1 1 0
5 3 1 0
# Cut-off deals
55 29 15 7 4 2 1 0
Then we had 105 deals above the line and 113 cut-off deals below the line. If the deals above the line made 1 % each, but below a loss of more than that the result would be negative.