Rule of thumb for position sizing

A lot of misquoting me, but it seems you agree that
"It is not, and never purported to be, a precise calculation of optimal position size under all circumstances, timeframes, leverage conditions etc."
BTW Buffett had a 50% DD in 09, he was long stock only and no leverage, so he is perfectly Ok.

Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

The thread is about a "Rule of thumb for position sizing", hence the title. It is not, and never purported to be, a precise calculation of optimal position size under all circumstances, timeframes, leverage conditions etc.

Some of you seem to misunderstand what a rule of thumb is, or what one is for, so I will clarify - a rule of thumb (aka a heuristic) is just a fast, simple, but useful and robust rule to aid in quick decision-making. It's something you can work out in a few seconds when time or simplicity is of the essence. Why use them? Because it is much more useful in a pressure situation to be able to get an approximately correct answer very quickly, than to get a more precise answer over a longer period of time. That is why rules of thumb exist. Once you understand this, you will realise how pointless and misguided it is to criticise one just because it isn't always precisely correct in all circumstances.
As for your stock market vs option scenario, at no point did I suggest risking 25%. If you read my post, you will see that the maximum risk I proposed was 2-4%. With a 90% win rate, and positive expectation, you are unlikely to run into problems risking 2-4% per option trade. As for your willingness to risk 25-30% of capital on any given position, that's merely evidence that you have a very high willingness to risk career-endangering losses. The Dow once fell 89% over 3 years, so clearly SPY can fall at least that much in future. The fact is that if you had risked this in the Nikkei in 1990, then 22 years later you would have lost 70%+ of your trading capital. So, I think your risk tolerance is insane, and you have no risk management to speak of.
 
Haven't put too much thought about the proper percentages. I'm still a novice who's always scared of losses. I just simply go in with a size that I can get out with ease, without raising my blood pressure, when the market turns. My position size, thus, depends more on the stock's liquidity rather than the account value.

Trying to improve one day at a time. Any critiques are welcome.
 
Quote from optionnew:

A lot of misquoting me, but it seems you agree that
"It is not, and never purported to be, a precise calculation of optimal position size under all circumstances, timeframes, leverage conditions etc."
BTW Buffett had a 50% DD in 09, he was long stock only and no leverage, so he is perfectly Ok.

No he didn't. In 2009 markets went up a huge amount and Berkshire made a lot of money. From 2007 to 2008 the book value of the company he runs fell from 121bn to 109bn, a decline of about 10%.

Besides, Buffett is not running an investment fund, he is running an insurance company and business conglomerate, so he does not have the same kind of risk of a spiral of redemptions like a fund manager would have. He is stinking rich relative to his annual expenses, so he does not have the same risk as a typical trader who has to live off their capital each year. So, Buffett is a poor comparison, even if he would have had a 50% drawdown in 2009 (or 2007-2008), which he did not.

And yes, I agree that a rule of thumb for position sizing is a rule of thumb for position sizing. Doh.
 
Is DD based on book value?? Usually when SPY would drop 50% the BV would not drop nearly as much. And yes berkshire had a 50% drop in "price" in March 09.

There is a lot of people that don't have have an invetment fund & don't live off their capital each year, for them a 50% DD in SPY "price" (not book value) should be accepteble based on your critiria.

I would add that's "only" if you don't use leverage
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

No he didn't. In 2009 markets went up a huge amount and Berkshire made a lot of money. From 2007 to 2008 the book value of the company he runs fell from 121bn to 109bn, a decline of about 10%.

Besides, Buffett is not running an investment fund, he is running an insurance company and business conglomerate, so he does not have the same kind of risk of a spiral of redemptions like a fund manager would have. He is stinking rich relative to his annual expenses, so he does not have the same risk as a typical trader who has to live off their capital each year. So, Buffett is a poor comparison, even if he would have had a 50% drawdown in 2009 (or 2007-2008), which he did not.

And yes, I agree that a rule of thumb for position sizing is a rule of thumb for position sizing. Doh.
 
I personally max out at 3% risk per trade with a 70%- 80% win ratio.

Reward 1 Risk 1.5


Any more is risky due to the win ratio always changing with future performance.

I really prefer 2% and if my account increases to a respectable amount i'd have no problem decreasing to 1% or less.

Combined with a few trades a day and compounding daily. 1% per trade is more then plenty . I feel greedy going for 3%.
 
Back
Top