You are correct. His financial performance is not really any of our business. However, when someone preaches fundamentalist dogma of any kind, then I take exception and ask for evidence of such acute righteousness. And lovely as his alleged numbers may be, unfortunately his mere say-so doesn't quite do it for me. And even at its face, we have no idea of the volatility of his performance in the way of drawdowns or its consistency over time. These are decidedly slim pickings for anyone other than members of the choir.
"Scaling out" is inferior behavior
- Thread starter Buy1Sell2
- Start date
I agree.
Sorry, market orders are for chumps for the most part on smaller time frames. You really have proven you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, except for maybe 100 shares each way.
Like everyone here is trying to point out to you, it's all relative. If you can make 5-figures daily intraday, would you still feel it a waste of time? Quality of life?? Why not make a million daytrading 6 months of the year, then spend the rest of the year enjoying that money? Silly rabbit.
I can say this, nobody will win this as theoretically B1S2 is totally correct, but many short term traders will not be able to trade that way.
The reason that people won't be able to achieve this is because their strategies are hooked on building a lot of primary target hits at which point they would close position once it retraces back to where they entered. I bet my sweet ass that if you were to look at their trades you would find a hell of a lot of primary target hit trades where they scaled out & closed remaining position once price retraces back to entry point. That's where their strength & weakness is.
Their win rate of hitting primary target is most likely quite high, secondary target around 50% or even below that, as if it was higher than 50% there would be no reason at all to scale out, doesn't make sense.
The reason that people won't be able to achieve this is because their strategies are hooked on building a lot of primary target hits at which point they would close position once it retraces back to where they entered. I bet my sweet ass that if you were to look at their trades you would find a hell of a lot of primary target hit trades where they scaled out & closed remaining position once price retraces back to entry point. That's where their strength & weakness is.
Their win rate of hitting primary target is most likely quite high, secondary target around 50% or even below that, as if it was higher than 50% there would be no reason at all to scale out, doesn't make sense.
Quote from Buy1Sell2:
I actually don't see where my returns are germane to the discussion here. They would have to be compared to someone taking the exact same signals/trades and scaling out as opposed to my not scaling out. This is where the discussion is aimed at. Not a one upmanship contest between myself and someone daytrading all day every day etc etc. My yearly return is irrelevant here as we are discussing a very simple math equation--. Thanks though SS!
B1S2
The relevance lies in the fact that SS is quoting a figure of 80%+ supplied by you.
One minute you are throwing figures around to support your ego and the next minute you decide they are not germane to the case because the direction you are being taken in, frightens you.
You are the one who consistently compares term trading to intraday.
They are chalk and cheese even to a novice and so there is something about your failure to master intraday that is obviously haunting you.
From your postings, you still take on the appearance of a paper tiger.
regards
f9
It's really just a simple math premise that I talk about here. The following is an example of the equation. Notice how the trader who scales may actually be able to boast that his win percentage is 66.67% as opposed to the non-scaler who has a 50% win percentage but makes more money. Simple math folks, but many want to throw irrelevant information into it--
Four ES Contracts 50% win ratio versus Four ES Contracts 50% win ratio scaling out at half target.
9 pt target 3 pt initial stop loss
1st example with 20 trades
10 winners for 9 X (4 conracts) = 360 pts ($18000)
10 loser for 3 X (4 contracts) = 120 pts (-$6000)
Net profit $12000
2nd example with 20 trades
10 winners for 9 X(2 Contracts)=180 pts ($9000)
10 winners for 4.5 X(2 Contracts)=90 pts ($4500)
10 Losers for 3 X(4 Contracta) =120 pts (-$6000)
Net profit $7500
Money can be made scaling out, but it is inferior behavior.
Four ES Contracts 50% win ratio versus Four ES Contracts 50% win ratio scaling out at half target.
9 pt target 3 pt initial stop loss
1st example with 20 trades
10 winners for 9 X (4 conracts) = 360 pts ($18000)
10 loser for 3 X (4 contracts) = 120 pts (-$6000)
Net profit $12000
2nd example with 20 trades
10 winners for 9 X(2 Contracts)=180 pts ($9000)
10 winners for 4.5 X(2 Contracts)=90 pts ($4500)
10 Losers for 3 X(4 Contracta) =120 pts (-$6000)
Net profit $7500
Money can be made scaling out, but it is inferior behavior.
No, that is incorrect... see prior posts...
<img src="http://www.enflow.com/p.gif">
Beware the carefully chosen example. A bespoke tailor would be proud. By "simulation," I think that taowave meant a real-time example, not a fabricated, self-serving one.
Forgive me, but I think that density may be impeding your absorption capability.
Over and out.