That is not so, purely because All In All Out might not do well in certain strategies. A strategy that I use would not be as profitable using All In All Out in comparison with Scaling Out. I know this, because I tried & failed. All In All Out simply doesn't garnish same results as Scaling Out one does in my case, because so many times if I hadn't scaled out I would have been stopped out & unrealised gain would turn into a loss & it's as simple as that.
"Scaling out" is inferior behavior
- Thread starter Buy1Sell2
- Start date
That is not so, purely because All In All Out might not do well in certain strategies. A strategy that I use would not be as profitable using All In All Out in comparison with Scaling Out. I know this, because I tried & failed. All In All Out simply doesn't garnish same results as Scaling Out one does in my case, because so many times if I hadn't scaled out I would have been stopped out & unrealised gain would turn into a loss & it's as simple as that.
FWIW, here is an article that seems to support the All in/All out strategy.
http://forums.babypips.com/show-me-money-swing-trading/8204-fib-retracement-trading-6.html#post34860
http://forums.babypips.com/show-me-money-swing-trading/8204-fib-retracement-trading-6.html#post34860
Quote from Buy1Sell2:
Most likely, your scale out point should really be your all out point. Some more analysis will bear that out.
But if I do close 100% position at scale out point, then extended gains become impossible to achieve in my situation. Just like in Ram's link, the guy is pretty clear about not scaling out when using his strategy, which is:
1. Enter
2. If Price goes to target All out
3. If Price returns to entry, before hitting target, then All out to b.e. (don't worry about spread cost for now)
But, in my strategy I
1. Enter
2. If Price goes to 1st target Scale out 2/3
3. If Price goes to 2nd target, then remainder 1/3 is closed.
4. If Price returns to entry, before hitting 2nd target, then remainder 1/3 is closed.
Again, I am talking about my way, which is not universal. Of course when one doesn't scale out when extended gains are achieved they beat scale out results, it's understood. Yet, so many times extended gains are not possible to achieve & that is where scaled out trades become more advantageous as instead of a b.e. trade it becomes a winning trade. Where is the fallacy in that?
Why is this zombie thread still alive? Where is there a Death Panel when you really need one?
Well, do what is best for you.
I think that newer traders could benefit more from scaling out because it can help with the psychology of having to face a pullback.
Just as what David Merkel said, "Scaling in and scaling out gives freedom to investors, and removing many of the psychological burdens that they bear. It doesn¡¯t mean there won¡¯t be losses. There will always be losses - but they will be easier to bear, with no panic that leads to selling off at the lows, or buying at the highs."
I think that newer traders could benefit more from scaling out because it can help with the psychology of having to face a pullback.
Just as what David Merkel said, "Scaling in and scaling out gives freedom to investors, and removing many of the psychological burdens that they bear. It doesn¡¯t mean there won¡¯t be losses. There will always be losses - but they will be easier to bear, with no panic that leads to selling off at the lows, or buying at the highs."