Scale in/out vs. all-in/all-out

[Overnight]

Hi, this is a placeholder for the following thread, to transition it out of another forum where it doesn't belong. It was getting too far away from that forum's purpose.

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...nd-scale-out-or-all-out-exit-stratgey.304701/

 

[Overnight]

SimpleLikeMe stated

Can you explain what you mean by "because you have lost sight of the goal."

I definitely don't want to waste time and use my energy in a productive manner.

I agree with the pre determined target. You make a good sense.

In that previous post/thread, you were asking about what one should do...Scale in or out, or just go in full bore with a few contracts.

The answer to that question is still yours to answer. I can only tell you from personal experience...There is no difference in going into a position with 1 or 3 or 50 or 1000 contracts. It just takes money to do it. Is that the prudent way? Hardly.

You have mentioned scaling in and out, and trailing. And this is the point I wanted to alliterate to ye.

The bits you mentioned in that other thread are quite valid, but a pre-determined target does not have to define your system. After all, why are you trailing in the first place? You are trailing to capture the most profits possible in a run, yes? So when a run goes for 50 tics, and your profit target is 50 tics, you win! Yay!

But what if the run goes for another 50 tics? You're gonna' hit yourself in the head mentally, yes, for not staying in, because you had that darn fixed target.

But what if the run suddenly reversed and went the other way? You'd be happy as a clam that you had the stop in place, to not lose your shirt! So why not combine the two?

On your runners, don't set a bloody target. Just let it run, and let the trailing stop be your target. Whatever window of pullback you want is yours to figure out. But you may just find that you will make a lot more money by not having fixed targets for your trailers. (This excludes the BE contracts to get you in the money, of course). Food for thought.

 

[recession2016]

SimpleLikeMe stated

The answer to that question is still yours to answer. I can only tell you from personal experience...There is no difference in going into a position with 1 or 3 or 50 or 1000 contracts.

wrong! there is a monumental difference

 

[Overnight]

wrong! there is a monumental difference

You're an out-of-contexter. Remember this bit? "It just takes money to do it."

 

[JSSPMK]

The findings will be inconclusive. In theory all in all out is best, but in a practical application this may not be so due to variance of factors.

 

[CyJackX]

Indeed, it's inconclusive without more information.
I don't think there's much of a comparison; the answer devolves into how much should you risk, which depends on how certain you are, and what you have to lose!

 

[Overnight]

...the answer devolves into how much should you risk, which depends on how certain you are and what you have to lose!

Exactly. The scope of the trade (position size), matters not. This exercise could be done with one contract, or 100, or 1000. It's just a matter of scale on the trading account. But for trailing purposes, 2-3 contracts is a reasonable amount to work with for most folks.

 

[Overnight]

The findings will be inconclusive. In theory all in all out is best, but in a practical application this may not be so due to variance of factors.

Damnit JSS, I want to agree and disagree with you at the same time. But in running it through my broken brain, I feel that trailing stops are better for folks who do not have precise entries. All-in/all-out is great for people who KNOW their entry, and KNOW their exit. Quite a talent that is.

For us mooks...I'mma stick with trailing stops. *sighs*

 

[JSSPMK]

For the record I use an extremely simple method, I buy potential DBs & sell potential DTs then hold full position till nearest resistance/support. I have found that for me all in/all out works best.

 

[SimpleMeLike]

SimpleLikeMe stated

In that previous post/thread, you were asking about what one should do...Scale in or out, or just go in full bore with a few contracts.

The answer to that question is still yours to answer. I can only tell you from personal experience...There is no difference in going into a position with 1 or 3 or 50 or 1000 contracts. It just takes money to do it. Is that the prudent way? Hardly.

You have mentioned scaling in and out, and trailing. And this is the point I wanted to alliterate to ye.

The bits you mentioned in that other thread are quite valid, but a pre-determined target does not have to define your system. After all, why are you trailing in the first place? You are trailing to capture the most profits possible in a run, yes? So when a run goes for 50 tics, and your profit target is 50 tics, you win! Yay!

But what if the run goes for another 50 tics? You're gonna' hit yourself in the head mentally, yes, for not staying in, because you had that darn fixed target.

But what if the run suddenly reversed and went the other way? You'd be happy as a clam that you had the stop in place, to not lose your shirt! So why not combine the two?

On your runners, don't set a bloody target. Just let it run, and let the trailing stop be your target. Whatever window of pullback you want is yours to figure out. But you may just find that you will make a lot more money by not having fixed targets for your trailers. (This excludes the BE contracts to get you in the money, of course). Food for thought.

Thank you for advice Overnight,

I agree, the pre determined targets I have data to show leave profit on the table. I first believe in if I risk 20 ticks (stop loss), i need to set my target (profit) at 40 ticks for the trade to make sense for r:r greater then 1.

So what I would like to do is find out how to trail my positions for all out, and no scale out.

How do I determine a decent trail distance when trailing a winning position? I don't know.

I don't belive there is a one size fits all. ideally I would like to r:r greater then 1 or 2 for all trades.