High frequency income opportunities at your fingertips:
Target up to 3 per day with CashBot.
If you’ve traded for any length of time, you’ve felt this: you win a bunch in a row, confidence surges… then a big loser slaps you and suddenly the week looks different.
That swing — the gap between how a system feels trade-by-trade and how it performs over a series — is why I judge any strategy by expectancy, not one-off results or slogans like “let winners run.”
Here’s how I explain it, in the simplest terms I can.
What Really Matters … And What Doesn’t
- Risk/reward alone is meaningless.
A system with bigger losers than winners can outperform one with the opposite profile if the win rate is high enough. You have to blend the two. - Think in series, not single trades.
Our job as traders is to repeat a small edge. The blend of wins and losses is what pays you, not last Tuesday’s close. It’s normal for a high-win-rate system to have stretches where a couple of losses wipe out several small wins. That doesn’t invalidate the edge — if the math is sound and you sized correctly. - Sample size matters.
Ten or even twenty trades can lie to you. If you’re evaluating a mechanical system, you need enough reps to let the math show up. - Match the system to your psychology.
Be honest about which is harder for you:
(A) a single loss that erases several wins, or
(B) taking a few losses in a row.
Pick systems whose cadence you can actually live with, otherwise you’ll quit right before the edge shows.
A Quick Mental Model I Use
If I can buy a $1-wide debit spread for $0.25 with roughly 50/50 odds, that’s a mathematically favorable trade:
Win +$0.75 half the time, lose -$0.25 half the time.
Repeat that enough and the series adds up to a winning edge.
But flip it around — pay $5.00 for a $10.00-wide spread with 50/50 odds — and the mathematical advantage disappears.
That’s the kind of coin-flip sanity check I do before I ever ask, “How did it do this week?”
Why Jeffry’s Latest Project Is Worth Your Attention
I’ve pushed hard the last few years for more mechanical, data-driven approaches because they make this whole discussion concrete.
And one thing I like about Jeffry Turnmire’s latest work: it’s high-frequency with a high hit rate.
That cadence helps people “get back on the horse” after a loss without making random, off-plan trades during long dry spells.
It’s not magic — there will be clusters of losers — but if you understand expectancy and size correctly, the series can still come out ahead. That’s the mindset I want you to take from this: judge systems by the math and the fit, not the feeling of the last trade.
The bottom line is this: if you evaluate any system on
(1) expectancy (win rate × average win minus loss rate × average loss)
(2) enough reps to be meaningful, and
(3) your own psychological fit
you’ll make better choices — and you’ll stick with good choices long enough for them to pay.
— Nate Tucci
P.S. See setups like this and much more every weekday at 10am and 3:30pm Eastern on Opening Playbook & Closing Playbook. Don’t miss it!
