The problem is that a stop loss treats risk as a property of price when risk is actually a property of exposure over time. So a stop loss is answering a question the market isn’t asking. It’s a number you invented that feels like it constrains your loss, but what it mainly does is add randomness. Stop losses are conceptually wrong. Not 100% useless, but wrong. You better look at how volatile what you’re buying is and size the position so that it is acceptable.

Most people confuse trading (and betting in general) as games of prediction. They focus on being right, thinking profits follow accuracy. But the market doesn’t pay for correct guesses, it pays for correctly priced risk. Accuracy might feel good, but it's cosmetic. Imagine you keep betting on a heavy favorite at 1.05 odds (95% implied chance). You win 10 times in a row. But then you lose once and that one loss wipes out all your gains. The issue wasn’t prediction. You were playing a -EV game: high accuracy, but the odds already reflect the true risk. No edge, just the illusion that accuracy is meaningful. Every good trade, every bet, is a position against consensus pricing. The direction of your equity curve isn’t determined by how often you're right but by how much you're risking when the odds are off. Hit rate only smoothens volatility. Risk management, at its core, means only engaging when the implied probability is wrong, and sizing so that variance doesn’t knock you out before the edge plays out. That’s it. Mispricing + correct bet size = up. Being right doesn’t make you money, being right when the odds are wrong does.