What to do with my life?

You guys have to remember the context. Is the original question 2% over 5 trades starting at the original balance separatley, or 2% on each trade, but the 5 losing trades simultaneously reaching a 2% loss on the original balance and then closing all at same time?
 
themickey said:
Formula not required.
5 trades at 2% each placed simultaneouly or of equal amounts of 2k each is 10%
Do you want the formula?
More...


Well, you’re fucking wrong. That was not the proposition. The proposition is not concurrent trades, but successive. You deleted your prior embarrassment.

Smalldik clearly stated trades in succession; I.e., trade one product... lose two percent...
 
Overnight said:
You guys have to remember the context. Is the original question 2% over 5 trades starting at the original balance separatley, or 2% on each trade, but the 5 losing trades simultaneously reaching a 2% loss on the original balance and then closing all at same time?
More...


Five concurrent trades is a 10% rule. Stating otherwise is a medically stupid asswipe trying to win a gunfight while brandishing a butter knife.
 
Just for the record so everyone can be aware of this idiot, Destriero blocked me as he was losing an argument, but still decided anyway to reply to my previous post, claiming I deleted something, when nothing was deleted.
I'm pleased he's blocked me, I have no time for losers and serial liars.

Well, you’re fucking wrong. That was not the proposition. The proposition is not concurrent trades, but successive. You deleted your prior embarrassment.
More...
 
IMG_8105.jpg
 
Either he deleted the post or edited it out 100%. His reply was added to my quote.

Five concurrent trades risking two percent is a 10% rule.

You lose
 
destriero said:
Five concurrent trades is a 10% rule. Stating otherwise is a medically stupid asswipe trying to win a gunfight while brandishing a butter knife.
More...

Wow, now we have a real twist in the nuts here. I know smallfil has me blocked so I cannot see his bits, and, des blocked themickey and themickey is blocking des so there are bits missing in there also…

And now qlai is posting pics of small dicks.

Oh, the webs we weave! I think maybe now is not the time on Sprockets when we dance?

 
LS1Z28 said:
The article gives an example of how someone can take a position size of over 20% of their account value in Apple, and limit their risk to 2% through a stop loss. This logic is flawed to some extent, because a stop loss won't save you if the stock's price moves past it after-hours or premarket. But it does illustrate that overall position sizing doesn't necessarily determine the overall risk in a trade. I guess technically it does, but only if you're trading something that could legitimately drop to zero overnight.
More...

In cases of a gap down or gap up, you stand to lose substantially more than the 2%. The 2% is a guide after all. 80% of the time, a Stop Loss would work to limit your losses. If you want to really limit possible losses, learn to trade options. Options buyers maximum risk is the cost of the premium paid and and not a penny more. That is in a worst case scenario at that! All proper position size does is to control possible losses. If you do not use any stop losses, you stand to lose more because you will stay in your position as it turns against you and losses mount! A stop loss will take you out because it is a conditional order to sell which turns into a market order when the stop loss amount is triggered. In those cases, you want to protect any profits you have or protect your capital and limit losses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top