Position sizing and adding to winners.

[Laissez Faire]

Hi all,

Happy Easter!

I'd be curious to hear from (day) traders what your approach is with regards to position sizing.

Do you keep it fixed at say 1-2 % per trade or do you have another approach?

Generally, I've always used a fixed position size throughout the day in relation to my capital, but lately, I've experimented a bit with both varying position size and adding to winners.

For me, this may mean trading with my smallest size early in the morning, but increasing size and/or adding to a winning trade as/if my confidence increases.

I haven't fully worked it out yet, but can use yesterday as an example. I had a strong long bias prior to the Open, but still, due to poor execution I managed to start the day in the red for a small drawdown. However, as the opening session progressed, I became increasingly confident that I was stopped up prematurely and I kept getting buy signals to support my thesis.

So, I entered long with the same size and double up with twice the size at a slightly higher level, effectively adding to a winning trade. This trade paid for my early loss and then some.

I know some people like to average down too, but I don't think I'm interested in trying that. I'd rather stop myself out then and get back in at the same or a better price.

Thanks in advance for any comments here.

 

[Genevian Speculator]

i always start 2 positions at least, 1 of them I sell early, to make a profit, then i move stop to breakeven. When the trade goes against me instead of breakeven i have still won. I don't add to winners, except for Forex in a clear trend move.

 

[Sekiyo]

From Poker theory

Over the long run everybody gets the same proportion of good and bad cards, of winning and losing hands. Beginning poker players rely on big hands and lucky draws. Expert poker players use their skills to minimize their losses on their bad hands and maximize their profits on their big hands.

The best hands I believe is a combination of
1. Directional bias (Bullish, Bearish)
2. Strong Momentum
3. Nice retraces

You definitely have to get the most of it,
When the odds are in your favor.

Averaging into a winning position,
However requires at least #1 and #2.

A clear bias and a strong momentum.

Therefore, you should almost always try to make the play that will maximize your positive expectation or minimize your negative expectation in order to maximize your hourly rate.

It’s all about expectations.
As the market favors your position,
You should definitely be more aggressive.

There is a time for fishing,
There is a time for slaughtering.

 

[Laissez Faire]

i always start 2 positions at least, 1 of them I sell early, to make a profit, then i move stop to breakeven. When the trade goes against me instead of breakeven i have still won. I don't add to winners, except for Forex in a clear trend move.

But when you're stopped out - you take a full loss on yor maximum position?

And you're scaling out of your winners? I assume you must have a high win percentage for this to work well and trade instruments that trend very well.

 

[Handle123]

Most intraday models get in too early on purpose, seldom buy the low of a retracement, so all signals average down up to four different levels, huge change from years ago of averaging down 12 levels. Reasons are risk less waiting for deeper retracements, so this also means less trades, don't wish to stomach mega loss days-gotten too old for that type of fun. Each model has at least nine entry signals depending chart patterns or couple indicators/fails of retail, so never at a loss of no trades for the day. Most with intension of scalping but small amount retained for larger moves. Adding to winners is having new signals of same trend. Two systems have breakeven plus one tick 40-60% of the time which means system was created with averaging down is as main reason for systems. I don't concentrate on winning percentages but losing the most. Averaging down offers hugest losses when three full loses occurs for that model, might take couple months to overcome loses, but overall been position for decades of doing.

Last few years reducing intraday and changing into do more weekly options and swing, this trading offers more reward to risk and much less risk, whereas intraday trading risk is greatest of all models, too costly to hedge.

More signals based on slope of price action and where price is within a swing, hard trending slope is much less signals as these often times end and reverse just as fast/sloped, so targets are made quicker which alters ability to take more signals of that timeframe, steep patterns cause some models to change timeframes to so many seconds but signals themselves do not change, price action is price action regardless of change of timeframes for my style of scalping.

Each signal without risk management is 50/50, where averages change is risk management based on should signal be taken, risk within parameters, and managing trade.

Currently live in the desert, no lakes, Rio Grange is dry so never fish, HAAA

Enjoy the long weekend all, catching up on movies not seen past 20 years.....

 

[bone]

What do you do when your “2 position” initial entry is immediately a stinker - how do you take that loss and how does that reconcile with your “early profit” winners ?

i always start 2 positions at least, 1 of them I sell early, to make a profit, then i move stop to breakeven. When the trade goes against me instead of breakeven i have still won. I don't add to winners, except for Forex in a clear trend move.

 

[Sekiyo]

This is according to the Kelly criterion (Betting size)

At zero, 1 to 1 odds and a bullish bias of 0.6.
Kelly tells us to bet around 20% of (let's say) our unit.

When market move +1, odds diminish to (5-1)/(5+1) and our bullish bias increase by 0.1 to 0.7
When market move -1, odds increase to (5+1)/(5-1) and our bullish bias decrease by 0.1 to 0.5

Under this scenario,
Kelly validate scaling into and out of our position.
We're flat at both extremes, either to stop bleeding or to take profit.

{5,0},
{4,(1(1/9)-(1-1))/(1/9)},
{3,(.9(2/8)-(1-.9))/(2/8)},
{2,(.8(3/7)-(1-.8))/(3/7)},
{1,(.7(4/6)-(1-.7))/(4/6)},
{0,(.6(5/5)-(1-.6))/(5/5)},
{-1,(.5(6/4)-(1-.5))/(6/4)},
{-2,(.4(7/3)-(1-.4))/(7/3)},
{-3,(.3(8/2)-(1-.3))/(8/2)},
{-4,(.2(9/1)-(1-.2))/(9/1)},
{-5,0}

 

[Genevian Speculator]

What do you do when your “2 position” initial entry is immediately a stinker - how do you take that loss and how does that reconcile with your “early profit” winners ?

I work with thight stops in the beginning anyways, so if it is a stinker I close both of them immediately. My r/r rate is always greater then 1:1 for both positions. The first has a r/r of 1,2 which is small but good enough.

I'm not having problems with beeing profitable, but to let winners run, which takes balls of steel, i do not have honestly.

 

[bone]

I'm not having problems with beeing profitable, but to let winners run, which takes balls of steel, i do not have honestly.

I know it sounds hokey and terribly OG - but start a daily personal trading journal. I don’t mean here on ET; but on your PC in Word or in a spiral notebook. You will be able to check yourself in terms of destructive emotions, repeating mistakes, and tracking / developing ideas.

I tell my own clients that eliminating mistakes is positive account equity and that one thing can make or break your trading future. Eliminating mistakes pays itself forward exponentially. I’ve seen brilliant ideas and sound trading systems get sabotaged countless times by foolish position management practices and destructive negative emotional feedback loops.

 

[schizo]

Hi all,

Happy Easter!

I'd be curious to hear from (day) traders what your approach is with regards to position sizing.

Do you keep it fixed at say 1-2 % per trade or do you have another approach?

Generally, I've always used a fixed position size throughout the day in relation to my capital, but lately, I've experimented a bit with both varying position size and adding to winners.

For me, this may mean trading with my smallest size early in the morning, but increasing size and/or adding to a winning trade as/if my confidence increases.

I haven't fully worked it out yet, but can use yesterday as an example. I had a strong long bias prior to the Open, but still, due to poor execution I managed to start the day in the red for a small drawdown. However, as the opening session progressed, I became increasingly confident that I was stopped up prematurely and I kept getting buy signals to support my thesis.

So, I entered long with the same size and double up with twice the size at a slightly higher level, effectively adding to a winning trade. This trade paid for my early loss and then some.

I know some people like to average down too, but I don't think I'm interested in trying that. I'd rather stop myself out then and get back in at the same or a better price.

Thanks in advance for any comments here.

As long as you strictly adhere to position size, it shouldn't be a problem. For instance, if you normally trade 10 lots, then you should not trade more than 10 (in aggregate) even if you were scaling in. It's when you trade more than normal you run into trouble. So don't bite more than you can chew.