entry management

[slapshot]

Quote from TraderZones:

FWIW, I saw a recent article that studied entries, and scaling in/out did not seem to help, compared to just getting in or out.

This is absolute nonsense.

Done correctly, scaling in improves your average fill price and scaling out allows for the occasional risk-free outlier gain on part of the position. Both greatly enhance expectancy and profitability.

The trick is to be very patient and not scale in/out too soon.

The even bigger trick is not to delude yourself that you are scaling in, when what you are really doing is adding to a bad trade.

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from slapshot:

This is absolute nonsense.

Yes, it is nonsense, as long as you ignore facts, statistics, logic, reason, and intelligent attempts to quantify how something really performs.

 

[slapshot]

Quote from TraderZones:

Yes, it is nonsense, as long as you ignore facts, statistics, logic, reason, and intelligent attempts to quantify how something really performs.

Or as long as you don't understand simple math and know how to make something work. And instead settle for reading and quoting something inaccurate.

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from slapshot:

Or as long as you don't understand simple math and know how to make something work. And instead settle for reading and quoting something inaccurate.

one person thinks something works. Another group does a comprehensive test. That is the major difference.

 

[slapshot]

Quote from TraderZones:

one person thinks something works. Another group does a comprehensive test. That is the major difference.

Look, I am sorry for you that you don't understand that improving one's average fill price by intentionally scaling in (at better prices) on part of the position is more profitable than just putting on the whole position at once at an inferior price.

I am also sorry if you don't understand that allowing the last 1/3 or 1/4 of a position to run as long as possible leads to the occasional huge winning trade on an outlier. With a risk-free or break-even-stop position to boot.

It is not even debatable. It is mathematical fact that I prove day in and day out.

It is only through flawed execution of the above that anyone can conclude otherwise.

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from slapshot:

Look, I am sorry for you that you don't understand that improving one's average fill price by intentionally scaling in (at better prices) on part of the position is more profitable than just putting on the whole position at once at an inferior price.

I am also sorry if you don't understand that allowing the last 1/3 or 1/4 of a position to run as long as possible leads to the occasional huge winning trade on an outlier. With a risk-free or break-even-stop position to boot.

It is not even debatable. It is mathematical fact that I prove day in and day out.

It is only through flawed execution of the above that anyone can conclude otherwise.

Well, at least you spelled things mostly correctly. Nothing else is valid.

Making this simpler, as I did not know how minimal your grasp of logic was.

One trader's executions/conclusions is called "statistically invalid"

A robust study is called "statistically valid."

I will try to use one syllable words in a subsequent post. So far, you have been a flawed exercise in kindergarten logic.

 

[ammo]

getting in to a trade is assuming it will move in your direction once your in, when what you thought was going to happen becomes more obvious,you no longer lean towards taking a loss, you add ,when it nears your target, you begin to take a few off, lock in a profit,if it reverses early you close the rest ,if not you close the rest at your target....simple works

 

[slapshot]

Quote from TraderZones:

Well, at least you spelled things mostly correctly. Nothing else is valid.

Making this simpler, as I did not know how minimal your grasp of logic was.

One trader's executions/conclusions is called "statistically invalid"

A robust study is called "statistically valid."

I will try to use one syllable words in a subsequent post. So far, you have been a flawed exercise in kindergarten logic.

First off, you are a sarcastic little dickhead. There is no reason to resort to juvenille insults during a mild debate. You should seek help for your antisocial personality disorder.

Second, it is not worth talking to you about this. You offer no refutation based on logic or facts or math, only insults and blind faith in some study that you seem to think is "robust".

You offer no mathematical proof, just a baseless opinion. And you are just plain dead wrong about this topic. Which given your lack of comprehension of what I wrote, is evident for all to see.

You are also wrong about one trader's executions or conclusions being invalid. Since every single trader executes differently, with a different style and expectancy, the ONLY valid stats are the ones that trader generates in his/her own real trading, with all real-life dynamic factors included.

It is the so-called studies that try to blanket all of the dynamic trading world with static conclusions that are statistically invalid. And that has led to so much myth and misinformation in the trading world.

Good luck with your own trading, let's move on now.

 

[slapshot]

Quote from ammo:

getting in to a trade is assuming it will move in your direction once your in, when what you thought was going to happen becomes more obvious,you no longer lean towards taking a loss, you add ,when it nears your target, you begin to take a few off, lock in a profit,if it reverses early you close the rest ,if not you close the rest at your target....simple works

Sure, this works. In my case, I do it a little differently.

The one thing I can count on about 90% of the time I put on a trade is that it will go against my chosen direction for a least a few ticks before it heads the way I think it will.

I simply take advantage of that by only putting on part of my position at first. Then I scale in the rest of it at better prices, which improves my cost basis.

Sometimes, if I am wrong about the trade, it will keep going against me and hit my stop. In this event, since I entered in portions at sequentially better prices, it means a smaller real loss.

If it goes my way, it means more profit per the given target.

Simple as 1 + 1 = 2.

 

[Chuck Krug]

I'm not a very good trader, but I've been working on a strategy where I enter half a position after getting a signal and adding the other half the next day but only when the first half is profitable. What I've found even more important is doing some 'spring cleaning' once a month and getting rid of the positions that are not working out very well.