Quote from illiquid:
Since b1s2 advocates trading the longer term, risking 2% on any given trade idea -- it's really no wonder that he doesn't condone scaling, there's basically no room for it. When trading such long time frames, you will need to have stops that are quite wide, and to limit your losses to 2% it means your position size relative to your account size will be much smaller than a shorter-term trader. To let go of a good trade even partially prematurely is very costly in this scenario.
What he is missing here in his personal disdain for short-term trading is that one can take much larger positions with tigher stops on the shorter time frame; for every 1 contract b1s2 takes, the shorter-term trader given the same size account will probably be comfortable with 5. What we've been trying to convince him of is that if both traders decide to take positions at the same time in the same direction, the shorter-term trader always has the option of holding for a longer term position, by scaling out of his "short-term" size, and reducing into a position size more commensurate for a longer term trade -- thus, in this case, "scaling out" helps keep him in the position longer, and it's a "given" who makes more money here.
It might just be a matter of perspective for when scaling is appropriate, but compared to the longer-term trader who cannot handle the shorter-term as well and must stick to that smaller position size to maintain his 2% loss limit -- well, it's quite obvious what is actually the inferior case here. So consider yourself right for your own trading purposes, but if you're going to use the label "inferior" on anything, you might want to start with your own forehead.
