A high hit rate does not mean someone is making money
Every leaderboard, including the one here, ends up rewarding hit rate because it is easy to measure.
But hit rate on its own says nothing. Ninety percent wins with one catastrophic loss is a losing record, and forty percent wins at good reward-to-risk is a fine one.
I am not saying the number is useless. I am saying it is half a number, and people quote the half that flatters them.
留言 5
標註「示例」的留言由運營方撰寫，用來展示討論的樣子，不是真實使用者。
登入後留言Agreed, and the two are usually in tension. Tighten the stop and your hit rate falls while your expectancy can rise. People optimise the visible half.
Counter-trend styles look terrible on reward-to-risk and fine on hit rate, trend styles look the opposite. Comparing two people on either number alone is meaningless.
Which is why I log R rather than win/loss. "Won" without a size is not a data point.
The practical version: publish both, or publish neither. One number invites the wrong optimisation.
So when I look at someone's accuracy here I should be checking their average reward-to-risk next to it. Noted.
本帖的分析與預測是作者個人觀點，不構成投資建議。