"Scaling out" is inferior behavior

Do you scale out of positions?

  • I always scale out

    Votes: 113 14.1%

  • I scale out most of the time

    Votes: 228 28.5%

  • Most of the time, I do not scale out

    Votes: 189 23.6%

  • I never scale out

    Votes: 270 33.8%
  • Total voters
    800
If you are moving real size, you essentially have no choice but to scale into and then out of the position. You just don't show 10K contracts to the market unless you are using an OTC or exchange facilitated block trade facility.

If you are taking a loss, I would agree that getting out of the entire position at once is preferential.

Also, many funds and large prop firms "iceberg" their orders. This is considered to be "scaling" by definition but the purpose is legitimate in terms of optimizing price at volume.
 
bone said:
If you are moving real size, you essentially have no choice but to scale into and then out of the position. You just don't show 10K contracts to the market unless you are using an OTC or exchange facilitated block trade facility.

If you are taking a loss, I would agree that getting out of the entire position at once is preferential.
More...
That is not scaling in and scaling out as I am describing. I am talking about the trader who is taking 1/2 off etc at a profit target and letting the rest run. Of course you are going to get different prices necessarily when putting a large position on.
 
Scaling out can be a superior strategy though. Let's consider the following example:

In this hypothetical example we would consider 2 accounts both trading 2 contracts (ES), same entries, but different exits. The non-scale out account would be aiming to achieve +9 points with a -3 point stop full position in and out, whereas scale out account would scale out 1 contract after +3 point gain and hold 1 contract for +9 point gain or stop at entry, with an exit of 2 contracts at -3 point loss, just like the non-scale out account.

After 100 trades the non-scale out account generated 70 losing trades due to inability to generate a high percentage of +9 point winners as price would go up some, reverse failing to reach +9 and position would have been taken out at -3 point loss 70 times.

A) 2 x 70 losers at 3 points x $50 -21,000
B) 2 x 30 winners at 9 points x $50 +27,000

Gross non-scale out: +6,000

After 100 trades the scale out account generated more winners than non-scale out account due to scale out of 1 contract after +3 point gain was reached and then the same 30 trades generated +9 point gain (as in the non-scale out account) but with 1 contract.

This is a very realistic outcome based on intraday behaviour of price, it goes up some, then reverses taking out stops and then maybe going back in the previously correctly anticipated direction. The $ advantage is clearly in the scale out account, because the non-scale out account generated a lower win rate due to either going for -3 or +9 full position whereas a higher win rate was achieved in the scale out account as we locked at +3 half position.

C) 2 x 30 losers at 3 points x $50 -9,000
D) 1 x 70 winners at 3 points x $50 +6,000
E) 1 x 30 winners at 9 points x $50 +13,500

Gross scale out: +10,500

Open to debate :)
 
Last edited:
romik said:
Scaling out can be a superior strategy though. Let's consider the following example:

In this hypothetical example we would consider 2 accounts both trading 2 contracts (ES), same entries, but different exits. The non-scale out account would be aiming to achieve +9 points with a -3 point stop full position in and out, whereas scale out account would scale out 1 contract after +3 point gain and hold 1 contract for +9 point gain or stop at entry, with an exit of 2 contracts at -3 point loss, just like the non-scale out account.

After 100 trades the non-scale out account generated 70 losing trades due to inability to generate a high percentage of +9 point winners as price would go up some, reverse failing to reach +9 and position would have been taken out at -3 point loss 70 times.

A) 2 x 70 losers at 3 points x $50 -21,000
B) 2 x 30 winners at 9 points x $50 +27,000

Gross non-scale out: +6,000

After 100 trades the scale out account generated more winners than non-scale out account due to scale out of 1 contract after +3 point gain was reached and then the same 30 trades generated +9 point gain (as in the non-scale out account) but with 1 contract.

This is a very realistic outcome based on intraday behaviour of price, it goes up some, then reverses taking out stops and then maybe going back in the previously correctly anticipated direction. The $ advantage is clearly in the scale out account, because the non-scale out account generated a lower win rate due to either going for -3 or +9 full position whereas a higher win rate was achieved in the scale out account as we locked at +3 half position.

C) 2 x 30 losers at 3 points x $50 -9,000
D) 1 x 70 winners at 3 points x $50 +6,000
E) 1 x 30 winners at 9 points x $50 +13,500

Gross scale out: +10,500

Open to debate :)
More...
--and the disposition of the 40 contracts not included in scale out example?
 
romik said:
Amount of lots is the same. Win ratio is higher in scale out example.
More...

This is only 160 contracts.


C) 2 x 30 losers at 3 points x $50 -9,000
D) 1 x 70 winners at 3 points x $50 +6,000
E) 1 x 30 winners at 9 points x $50 +13,500
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top