> The poker analogy [to day trading] is not an accurate
> one for several reasons.
Name them. I don't have anything against gambling in either form, but let's call a spade a spade: it's still gambling, and the same mathematics apply. If you can calculate an expectation and a variance, you can calculate a risk of ruin. I suspect yours is higher than you think, but's that's only an impression. I play a very high variance game so my instincts are developed for that. One thing that you do have going for you: you can decrease your bets when you lose, lowering both absolute EV and absolute ROR.
> I would like to apply some analysis to my trade history in the near
> future to find out if the most profitable trades have anything in
> common and likewise for the losers.
Don't be silly. If that were possible, everyone would have done it years ago, and nobody would have any losers anymore. I'm not disparaging your analysis; I'm sure your evaluations are as good as anyone's, but they'll never be 100% accurate or even close. Over time, you'll make bucketloads of money--but the short term can be a killer.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC