I don't see you mentioning your strategy at all and of course what would be viable is entirely dependent on the strategy.
Crap, I really should've included my strategy in the original post. Here it is (applicable to both long and short plays):
1) I'm on the Pacific Coast. Wake up at 5am, complete my morning routine, begin the process to select FOUR stocks to watch / trade.
2) I'm looking for +/- 2% gappers with news that also have an attractive daily chart. >100k volume premarket with a good price flow, >30M float, >$0.50 ATR, between $10 and $500 price.
3) Indicators: volume, daily and pre-market levels and VWAP (still have more learning on Level 2 before I trust myself with it) - I've lost interest in moving averages and the more "clever" indicators.
4) Charts: 1 min, 5 min and 15 min.
5) I've recently started refraining from trading within the first 15 minutes unless something really jumps out at me.
6) I have a few setups I'm learning, but so far this is my favorite: Wait for the stock to indicate that it has chosen its direction and then wait for an entry near VWAP upon a pull-back.
7) Once an attractive region of entry has been established, I calculate my entry point and share size based on the stop loss and profit target. I always risk a fixed $R per trade, which will be lost if the stop is hit. My nominal profit target in this calculation is always 2R. The R and 2R values both account for commissions. Both the profit target and stop loss are based on technical levels in hopes of minimizing the likelihood of loss and maximizing the likelihood of profit.
8) Enter the full position order (no partials or scaling in) as a limit if I suspect a bounce off or near VWAP, or possibly, and rarely, as a stop if it crossed VWAP and I'm expecting it to come back.
9) Upon entering the position, immediately place the stop-loss order.
10) Once the stock is in profit territory, convert the stop-loss order into a bracket order (or OCO), again for the full position size, no partialling in or out. I have found yet no need to add the complexity of partialling in / out of trades.
11) Depending on the price action and my P/L for the day, I may adjust the profit target on the fly at my discretion after being in the position for a bit. I may also ratchet up the stop at my discretion. I monitor the historical success of my discretionary adjustments. This strategy too often yields greater than 2:1, so I have adopted on-the-fly ratcheting and so far I'm not disappointed with the aggregate results.
12) I make no more than four trades per day and stop entering positions by 12pm EST. It's quite rare that I enter a position after 11am EST. The obligation of my day job helps with this. If my first two trades are winners, I'm done for the day. I may very well stop if only the first trade wins. If I lose the first three in a row, I will only enter a fourth trade if something really attractive shows up, and on that trade I will move my stop to break even as soon as it enters profit, rather than taking a full loss on the fourth trade. I have considered capping the daily loss to three trades, but so far this has proven to work well.
13) Enter every trade into my journal for review.
14) Continue education / trade review during evenings and weekends.
The smaller the company the better chance of finding one, simple because it's harder for the largest guys to trade with volume in these. Then again, so will it be for you quite quickly.
I think this is the heart of my question. Part of the trade-off analysis for me is the actual profit potential. Please note that I'm saying that PART of this pro/con debate is, for me, the potential profit (some others being lifestyle, freedom, fun, challenge, etc). It makes sense to me that we each have our own personal ceilings (psychology, standard of living, life events, etc.), but the market itself contributes to the ceiling as well, from what I've read and from what I've observed with slippage even in my own paltry-sized positions. I have heard people state with great confidence things along the lines of "the liquidity requirements of a given strategy will determine its scalability." So I'm searching for real-life specific examples that demonstrate that phenomenon. For example "Hey Jeff, my strategy is similar to yours and I started hitting my ceiling at about such and such a time / account value / share size, etc. And here's what I found: (cue mind-blowing exposition of an experienced trader describing pitfalls associated with scaling up in volume)."
I'm not going to attempt advising you on DT as I don't have anything resembling enduring success in that, I'm sure there are some ETers who will though; you can usually research people's posting history to figure out what their advice is worth.
Thank you Snuskpelle.
