Does my very simple strategy make sense?

Hi Guys

I'm a newbie here. I don't have a lot of trading experience - but i would consider myself as someone with a good understanding of risk reward and probabilities.

I've no idea if my system below is idiotic - or quite good. Hence why i'm posting. (I haven't tested this or anything - now would i know how to)

This is geared for day trading (as given its (supposed !) positive expectancy then the more trades the better)

for simplicity i will assume long positions below - but it can also apply short.

Can anyone point out any obvious flaws?
I see one main one. It needs back testing to find out the optimum risk reward. I picked 1:2 pretty randomly. But i guess it has to be above 1 to break even (inc fees). Maybe 1:1.5 might be better.Maybe 1:3 would be better. I simply don't know.

I accept it is very simple method - but does it even need to be any more complex? It seems to have a positive expectancy as far as i can see.

Is the above a viable trading strategy? I cant see why it wouldn't be. But i am a newbie only !

Hi, I hope this doesn't appear too harsh, but I see nothing here that evidences a positive expectancy. So no, this is very far from a viable trading strategy. Just for info, I do day trade for a living (and it's nothing like the crap you will read in most trading books and forums). Anyway good luck.

I guess where i was hoping the positive expectancy is that given you are trading with the momentum then it is more likely to go in that direction. I would put the take-profit point twice as far away from the stop-loss.
With all things being equal/random then it should hit the Take profit point 1 in 3 times meaning a break even.
But given i am trading with the momentum it would have a greater strike rate of 33%.
And that is my edge.

And to maintain a little extra edge, any trades that end up ranging would be closed out (as they are closer to 50/50 bets meaning they would hit the stop-loss twice as often as the take profit.

Quite simply, you don't know if this "system" has edge - you have not adequately researched it, not back or forward tested it, not run it under live conditions etc. You have not defined 'momentum', nor tested if your definition of it works as you anticipate, nor have you factored in costs, slippage, errors etc. I think you get the just... sorry.

However, don't take my word for it (or the word of anyone else on the internet). Prove it for yourself.