Marketsurfer says short shake shack

[i960]

Ok i see, you don't use tight stops, that is why you got some rooms to put new trades closer to your initial stop. And you want to watch how weak hands react : makes sense, it gives more flexibility.
Thanks

CM

If I get on on a weak hand shake out then I use tight stops and size up then. I usually have to have a resting limit order for this ahead of time though. In the situations where I'm not setup already, I don't have the best read at the time but the read becomes better, or there's still a bit of play in the trade that's when I add with an additional 25-50% more risk or so. If the trade looks iffy I won't add. Sometimes one just gets in shitty trades and those are the ones to avoid adding anymore size (let alone entering in the first place but shit happens).

 

[Autodidact]

Well I trade futures but it would be common to position at a reasonable price point with acceptable risk early knowing that there may be some tree shaking / weak hand testing coming up. My usual preference is to get in on those moves but there are sometimes ambiguous areas where it might look like that either already happened or might not happen so I put a trade on with the usual target. Now if retracing starts happening and it moves against me I take a contextual look at the situation and determine how much does this threaten the trade and if it still looks valid I add to it as since I use the same stop as the original position I've now added more size with less risk than my original position. This is of course averages in to the trade but if I get stopped out I'm not taking the full adverse move against this new size - only half or a quarter of it.

This method of position management has pros and cons, like most concepts.

For instance, dead wrong from the start, means u take a loss on all your positions if you were "tricked" as you added.

And of course, the obvious one, right from the start means your winner leaves with its smallest size.

 

[i960]

This method of position management has pros and cons, like most concepts.

For instance, dead wrong from the start, means u take a loss on all your positions if you were "tricked" as you added.

And of course, the obvious one, right from the start means your winner leaves with its smallest size.

There's always a chance to add to the winner just like usual. If I'm dead wrong from the start I'd rather take a loss on 50-75% of the full size than 100%. We cannot be right all the time, and I feel it's a reasonable compromise. More often than not, things don't just take off.

 

[TooOldForThis]

I see each trade separately. Each trade should perform well. So for each separate trade the open losses should be limited.
What you propose sounds to me like saying: I have a very good system because my open losses are always lower then 0.1%. The reason why it is so low is because I only use 1% of my capital and divide the risk from this small trade over my complete capital. To me that is irrelevant. Each stop loss should be related to the amount of money in that trade, that will show how good your system is.
From the point of view of capital protection you are correct, but if the results of how I calculate are good, the overall result will be automatically good. I try to limit the risk of every trade on its own.

So if you came upon a method of trading which doubled your money 95% of the time and lost all of it 5% of the time, you'd reject using it because the possibility of total loss would exceed your stop loss. (LOL)

Hey, the beauty of trading is that there are thousands of different ways of making money. (And millions of ways of losing it.) For now, I'll follow Edward O. Thorp's money management method.

 

[debitspread]

Uhhh, does anyone have a view on SHAK? Note the thread title...

High level discussions of how to size trades, whether to average in, etc, might be interesting but should be happening elsewhere, rather than jacking Surf's thread.

 

[Chris Mac]

Uhhh, does anyone have a view on SHAK? Note the thread title...

High level discussions of how to size trades, whether to average in, etc, might be interesting but should be happening elsewhere, rather than jacking Surf's thread.

Last resistance @83.50 dollars... New highs if broken.

 

[lucysparabola]

Uhhh, does anyone have a view on SHAK? Note the thread title...

High level discussions of how to size trades, whether to average in, etc, might be interesting but should be happening elsewhere, rather than jacking Surf's thread.

i think you mean sha(c)king up in Surf's thread...
Surf Sha(c)k?

i can keep going.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

For instance, dead wrong from the start, means u take a loss on all your positions if you were "tricked" as you added.

And of course, the obvious one, right from the start means your winner leaves with its smallest size.

This is exactly right. The scaler gives themself a strike before even entering the batter's box.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

. Many pro traders trade in this manner, by the way,

Not correct

 

[i am nobody]

Uhhh, does anyone have a view on SHAK? Note the thread title...

High level discussions of how to size trades, whether to average in, etc, might be interesting but should be happening elsewhere, rather than jacking Surf's thread.

Got it. Removed my posting. ops: