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.
Yep I was just about to say that some people are confusing trade size with capital at risk. Trade size is certainly not = capital at risk, at least not all the time. A day trader who is trading something that is extremely liquid can usually limit his loss to a predefined % of his total capital, unless its a black swan event like the CHF blow up a couple of years back, hard stops will generally do the job.
Of course stops are pretty much useless for any overnight position due to gaps, experienced traders manage this risk by greatly reducing trade size since capital at risk is now potentially = trade size.
Its impossible to know if a trader is managing his risks properly from the size of his trades alone, he could be utilizing 20% of his account on a daytrade but risk managing it with a hard stop that limits the loss to 10% of that position (effectively a 2% drawdown on his account if he gets stopped out).
That said I'm pretty sure the op is taking some pretty huge risks with his trades and he is not likely to be managing them with intraday hard stops, its impossible to 4x an account so quickly without going crazy with risk, either that or he must have discovered a serious market inefficiency that enabled him to do risk free arbitrages on a daily basis.
