What I find bizarre about the ‘Hold and Hope’ indicator is that the larger this ratio is, the lesser there is an ‘Hold and Hope’ system attitude. Wouldn’t it be better to call it ‘Cut and Accept’ instead?
Hold & Hope is term (especially here on C2, during the May market downturn), where a vendor hangs onto a position until it turns positive. This makes the track record.equity curve look better, but drives up the trade’s drawdown, sometimes to ridiculous heights. For example, a $55,000 drawdown, which eventually wound up as maybe a $200 profit.
We called this “Hold & Hope” and there were signficant complaints about this practice and also for averaging down.
The point is, that a high value of the index actually means that the system does not utilize a hold & hope strategy. The name points in the wrong direction.
Hold and Hope tells potential subscribers what to watch out for, which is the purpous of the indicator. .
A reversal of numbers might be in order but the guide takes care of that.
Exactly, Jules! Wij begrijpen elkaar. The name points in the wrong direction.
That’s what he meant. The guide might take care of it, but it is even better if the name is correct. The current name is comparable to using the name “loss factor” for something that is actually a profit factor.
This is exactly what I brought up in the other threads.
"Holding & Hoping" is BAD. Certainly, it speaks volumes about the person who came up with this name – such a person is a "glass half empty" type.
On the other hand, at least the metric itself is correctly attuned – ie, larger is better. It is incongruous with the name, however, and that needs to change. Call it the "Canfield Ratio", and be done with it.
Even "Canfield ratio" would be better than the current name; I agree. But I would even more appreciate a descriptive (as opposed to normative or personalized) name like "profit on drawdown".
