I'm looking for basic trading strategies that are known to show positive expectancy. Could you support your answers with some examples?
closed as too broad by Pete B., Peter K., Nathan L, JoeTaxpayer♦ Sep 4 '18 at 18:16
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Buy index funds with the lowest practical expense ratio. My reference is John Bogle's seminal work, Common Sense on Mutual Funds.
If you want it to be more complicated than that... then invest half your money Bogle's way and play with the other half. See what does better consistently, in the long term, and net of all costs/fees.
I have a positive expectancy with my strategy.
At the moment my win rate is 54% and my P:L ratio is 1.84:1, giving me an expectancy of $620 per trade. My aim is to get my P:L above 2:1 whilst keeping my win rate above 50%.
The strategy is to buy financially healthy and up-trending stocks on the ASX200 and place a 16% trailing stop loss. As long as the ASX200 keeps up-trending, then if I am stopped out of a trade I will immediately look to get into a new trade. I am to keep a maximum of 15 trades open at any one time. If the ASX200 starts to down-trend then I will not open new trades once I am stopped out of existing trades.
My biggest win so far is about $8000 and my biggest loss so far is about $2300.
I am trading share CFDs, started with $50K in February and have so far made $24K profit this year.
It's certainly understandable that you'd want to beat the market (who doesn't?), but it's just not feasible. The thing is, there just isn't a strategy that can be used to reliably beat the market that's worthwhile after accounting for fees and taxes.
Smarter people than any of us have tried, and even the very few who may pull it off for a few years, or even a decade, typically fail to perform in the next period of time.
Even if there were such a strategy it would, inevitably, fail to remain a secret for long, and become useless when millions of others tried to emulate it. All of the publicly traded stocks on the market have to be owned by someone, and exactly half of those stock must perform below the average over any given period of time. The people who profit from investor's desire to beat the market are the brokers, the fund managers, and the IRS.
As long you as fail to do worse than the market, you'll do well for yourself. Get an index fund. They're about as cheap and easy as it gets.
It is well known and many times discussed in the internet that even the best professional fund managers are not able to beat simple index funds in the long-term (for example: https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/index-funds-vs-mutual-funds-the-differences-that-matter-most-to-investors/, or google 'index funds vs managed')
That implies there is no better strategy than buying index funds and wait.
Any interaction from you makes your long-term expected gain worse - unless you are the one super-fund-manager that is better than all the professionals in the world.
Surprisingly many people believe so, and think they can do better, often because they were able to beat the market over a certain period of time.
It is a lot like playing roulette in Vegas and winning with 'your strategy' five times in a row - you tend to believe that you got the trick. There is no trick, and sooner or later you will lose, and your long-term losses will be higher than your gains. But as you can see, Vegas makes a killing on people that don't understand the math.