Quote from whitster:
for pete's sake, this is the opposite of prudent money management. it is ESSENTIALLY a martingale type strategy.
which, as another poster pointed out - which works until it doesn't
if you have positive expectancy setups, you don't need to (nor is it optimal) to keep adding on size when you have a losing trade. the idea is absurd. yes, the market is (generally) a regressing to the mean market. the problem is - if and when the bottom (or top) falls out (as it does sometimes) you end up with massive losses.
if you are a good trader, you can develop setups with high enough expectancy that you don't have to do this doubling down rubbish. you can make RANDOM entries and make money with this double down method - for a while. until you get wiped out. it's gambling.
that's all you are doing.
the idea that you think the market is random (which is absurd), shows that you don't understand the market. if it WAS random, no trader could develop setups that work.
work WITHOUT doubling down over and over until you show a profit.
i might add
i LOVE traders (and i use that term loosely) like you. you are the gamblers that MAKE the market so predictable. that ensure wonderful cascading price action when you get margin called, stopped out, forcefully liquidated.
you might as well just send a bunch of traders your money NOW. save the middleman (CME). the result will be the same