I thought it would be interesting to get a feel for average levels of risk assumed per trade (in terms of % of account) amongst the ET community...
For example, if you have an account of $100,000, how much of that would you be prepared to lose on a single trade? The conventional yardstick that we all hear about and read about is 2% ($2000 risk in this context)... but some traders don't mind a much more volatile equity curve (e.g. Livermore) and will risk a pretty high % of their account on a single trade.... others may view even 2% as on the high side, and may opt for a risk of 0.25% to 0.5%... the latter category of people will have a much smoother equity curve...
So do you prefer a smoother, less volatile equity curve versus a potentially higher but more volatile equity curve?
[ P.S. for highly leveraged instruments such as futures, your account will obviously not be fully-funded to the value of the underlying, so replace "% of account" by "% of reserves of capital allocated to trading, irrespective of whether that capital is actually in the trading account"... ]
For example, if you have an account of $100,000, how much of that would you be prepared to lose on a single trade? The conventional yardstick that we all hear about and read about is 2% ($2000 risk in this context)... but some traders don't mind a much more volatile equity curve (e.g. Livermore) and will risk a pretty high % of their account on a single trade.... others may view even 2% as on the high side, and may opt for a risk of 0.25% to 0.5%... the latter category of people will have a much smoother equity curve...
So do you prefer a smoother, less volatile equity curve versus a potentially higher but more volatile equity curve?
[ P.S. for highly leveraged instruments such as futures, your account will obviously not be fully-funded to the value of the underlying, so replace "% of account" by "% of reserves of capital allocated to trading, irrespective of whether that capital is actually in the trading account"... ]
