ake

Either more markets or single market, multiple timeframes. Many traders focus on a single market and know its rhythms and nuances well. The challenge with fast timeframes, like 1 minute, is likely to be to manage your orders, particularly if, for instance, you want to enter long with a stop a tick above the signal bar's high and the signal bar closed at the top of its range. In that case, --and also if you prefer to enter with a limit order at the EMA--, it might be helpful to enter your orders soon after the retracement starts and keep them a certain distance away until price pierces the EMA, then move them as needed.

Phoenix, you may want to consider taking only the pullbacks and rallies that follow an A-B-C move up or down. A-B-C moves tend to happen in trending markets or markets that are starting to trend and are less likely in range bound ones. Filtering trades this way might help you avoid low probability signals. Good trading!

Strong statement. If you had a fondness for trading reactions and rallies in a trend you might find trendlines useful to determine direction in the higher timeframe, then trade the lower timeframe only in that direction. You could use the break of a trend line across the highs of the reaction or the lows of the rally as a trigger to enter. You might even draw a channel line (parallel to the trend line) along the higher highs of the trend and consider a price excursion past the channel line as overbought and due for a correction, then trade for a return to the mean. Good trading!

In my trading, entry points are important to limit risk and exits tend to drive my P&L.

I don't think we are. I take risk off market participants and get paid by them on a performance basis for managing it.

"Be there to take the trade". Potential profits from missed trades exceeded losses from all other errors I made in the past month combined, by a factor of 2:1. If past experience is anything to go by, I will at some point in the future "master" this rule, and it will cease to be my number one rule. Instead, I will move on to the next category of error I will be making, that will be costing me the most money, and I will come up with another "number one trading rule" to address it. My "number one trading rule" is a pretty transitory thing. At this stage, I don't know of "perennial truths" in my trading. It's all about troubleshooting. One at a time.

Michael Lewis, who gave evidence to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission thinks, along with some in academia, that women may be better at managing risk than men. When asked what single thing he would do to reform the markets and prevent [the 2008/2009 financial crisis] happening again, [Michael Lewis] said: "I would take steps to have 50% of women in risk positions in banks." Pressed on this, he went on to suggest how science reveals that women in general make smarter decisions regarding investment than men, that when it comes to money, women in couples are demonstrably better at evaluating risk than their partners, and single women much better still. Though those of us males who have an uncanny sense of money always slipping through our fingers might anecdotally believe this to be true, I was surprised to hear it stated as a fact. It seemed to beg a number of questions. First, if women really are better at making these judgments, why is it always men, still, without exception, who troop out before select committees to explain where it all went wrong, and how they weren't really to blame. And second, would it really be different if women were in charge? You don't have to look too far into the science to realise that Lewis's claim, in broad terms, stands up. The first definitive study in this area appeared in 2001 in a celebrated paper that broke down the investment decisions made with a brokerage firm by 35,000 households in America. The study, called, inevitably, "Boys will be Boys" found that while men were confident in making multiple changes to investments, their annual returns were, on average, a full percentage point below those of women who invested the family finances, and nearly half as much again inferior to single women. A more recent study of 2.7 million personal investors found that during the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, men were much more likely than women to sell any shares they owned at stock market lows. Male investors, as a group, appeared to be overconfident, the author of this study suggested. "There's been a lot of academic research suggesting that men think they know what they're doing, even when they really don't know what they're doing." A fact that will come as a surprise to few of us. Men, it seemed, typically believed they could make sense of every piece of short-term financial news. Women, never embarrassed to ask directions, were on the whole far more likely to acknowledge when they didn't know something. As a consequence, women shifted their positions far less frequently, and made significantly more money as a result. Read the rest here: Testosterone and high finance do not mix: so bring on the women | World news | The Observer