Thread: Nail small amount everyday?

Originally Posted by ;

quote um, 1 minute you are advoe on a thread of commerce SL on every transaction, then you discuss a single transaction to wipe out a month's profit? There is very little difference between earning small profits, regular big profits, or any profits for that issue. All carry the possibility ( and the hard truth also) of a reduction. Just as well as making regular small profits could be wiped out with a sizable reduction. . .regular large profits could be wiped out with a bigger reduction. Makes sense, right? So you only have to work in your cash management...

Yes it is true reduction is a reduction regardless whether you have been making little profits or large profits before BUT in case you've been making regular large profits, after being hit by a sizable reduction, you have higher likelihood of ending up still from the green or at least break-even and when you've been making just smaller regular profits, when the same large loss strike, you have a smaller prospect of still ending up at the green or break-even.

So that's why I say trading little is fine but you just have to remember your losses have to be controlled to be modest as well to match your profit level. Ideally you need to try to win big, slim little but if you can't at least when you win little, lose little also.

Originally Posted by ;

men do you think a lot size of 0.15 per #500 is big?

How big is SL ? You need to calc your lot base on SL (how many pips) and Risk percentage % ? How much are you ready to lose in current commerce.
There are a lot of calculator on web

Originally Posted by ;

quote Yes it is true reduction is a reduction regardless whether you've been making little profits or massive profits before BUT in case you have been making periodic large profits, after being struck by a large reduction, you have greater chance of ending up still in the green or break-even and when you have been making just smaller regular profits, if the exact same large loss strike, you have a smaller chance of still ending up in the green or break-even. So that's why I state trading little is good but you just have to keep in mind that your losses need to be controlled...

incorrect wrong, sorry.
If your little profits the instance, then the reduction ought to be coming as little also. . .if talking about a big reduction
else if substantial profits will be the case, and the reduction must ben't large, but bigger (subsequently the profits)...

when the size compare both both profits and reduction sizes, since they assumed also, then there's not any difference in drawdown %age in the end, big or small was the profit in previous run.

Once you ideally try to win big, either your losses will likely be big, larger, or really big, or your win percent will probably be so reduced, which it adds up to big losses

again, all of us trade differently, and I for one not a believer that to make money one ought to chase high R :R home runs.

Anyway, since OP is less than busy here, actually, I dont believe need more opinions on it.
Just responded for the arguments sake.

Originally Posted by ;

quote incorrect wrong, sorry. In case your little profits the instance, then the loss ought to be coming as little too...

Not if you place tight tp goal and yet wider sl levels as many traders do. They tp as soon as they view some profit to attempt and lock them in before they disappear but when they are hit with a loss, they hold onto the loss believing it might turn around and become a profitable trade afterwards. So they wind up accumulating $100, $200 profits perhaps a few days in a row and then hit by a huge $10K loss that simply wipes out each of their little profits before.

Originally Posted by ;

quoteif talking about a large loss else if large profits will be the case, and the loss must ben't large, but larger (subsequently the profits)...

That's EXACTLY what I've been saying. The size of loss needs to fit the size of their profit. If you are only making little profit, then you need to set up tighter stop loss to ensure that the loss are small too.

Originally Posted by ;

quote That is EXACTLY what I've been saying. The size of reduction needs to match the size of the profit. If you're simply making little profit, then you have to set up tighter stop loss to ensure the reduction are small also.

Tighter prevent losses generally means triggered more frequently. Which then changes the machine balance (whatever the machine is consciously or unconsciously being executed), because winners is becoming less regular and consequently have be larger in order to pay additional, compounded loss from (now) more frequent losses, which, in turn, become more challenging to acquire...

UNLESS one has proven means for longer spans and can fluidly fix both side of equation. But in such a case this discussion wouldn't take a place in any way, so...

For , it might be really good to know EXACTLY what one tries to execute and the way change of a single detail affect the rest. Otherwise, discussion for example stop loss or not actually become academic dialogue. Kind of seeing things and looking at clouds. And by understanding exactly I mean not talk, but act, analysis and conclusion. I've not seen some of those yet, which brings us back to clouds

Originally Posted by ;

quote Tighter prevent losses generally means triggered more often. Which changes the system equilibrium (whatever the system is consciously or unconsciously being implemented), because winners is becoming less frequent and consequently have be larger in order to pay additional, compounded loss from (currently) more frequent losses, which, in turn, become more challenging to obtain... UNLESS one has ever demoned method for longer periods and can fluidly adjust both sides of equation. But in this case this discussion wouldn't take a place in any way, so... For...

I have a TE (live) atttached, not sure how much of the transactions observable however.
Personally I dont care single individual SL orders, I care drawdown, functioning and realized, compared to equity. . .ie. Equity that is hard SL!
Of course which could be a whole different debate, and I dont need to get into it today, the TE should give a good picture about if there's much drawdown, toxic trades carried, or a constant yield is achievable using a regular rate of expansion.

Originally Posted by ;

quote Tighter stop losses usually means triggered more frequently. Which then changes the machine equilibrium (whatever the machine is consciously or unconsciously being executed), because winners is becoming less regular and consequently have be bigger in order to pay extra, compounded loss from (currently) more frequent losses, which, in turn, become more challenging to obtain... UNLESS one has proven method for longer spans and can fluidly fix both sides of equation. But in this case this discussion wouldn't take a place in any way, which means...

I agree. The principle of success for daytrading remains allow the profit run and block the loss early so that way the profit would be larger than reductions therefore ideally one should aim for large wins small wins but what I was saying was IF you want to nail only small losses then you have to keep your losses small to coincide with the wins.

Originally Posted by ;

quote I agree. The rule of achievement for daytrading is still allow the profit run and block the loss early so the profit would be larger than reductions therefore ideally one should aim for big wins tiny wins however what I was stating was IF you would like to nail just tiny losses then you must keep your losses small to match the wins.

Make 7x 100$, and also lose 3x 200$ will maintain profits bigger then the huge losses but can make money,without letting profits run, or cutting losses bigger than the winnings.

It is about the person mathematics, and the balance finding what works out for you or not.
That most certainly at some point overwrite exactly what the common good practice tells one must do to be a winner, especially since most of these frequent practice advisers have a tendency to be a net losers themself, too frequently. (this component not aimed to anyone special, a general observation just!)

Originally Posted by ;

quote make 7x 100$, and also eliminate 3x 200$ will maintain profits bigger then the huge losses but will make money,without letting profits run, or cutting losses smaller than the winnings. It's all about the individual math, and the equilibrium discovering what working out for you or not. That most surely at some stage overwrite what the common good practice tells one must do to be a winner, especially since the majority of these common practice advisers have a tendency to be a net losers themself, too often. (this part not geared to anybody particular, a general monitoring...

$200 reduction. $100 isn't TOO bad although it's still 200%, TWICE of the winning and also on your example, it is just fine because you could make 7 X 100 profit. Imagine if you weren't? Imagine if you were just able to create 2 X 100 profit? You never know what the market deals to you. If you made just 2 X 100 profit, and then in the event that you incur a ONE time $200 loss, it would've wiped out all your profit. And if we extend the time longer, let us say you have a winning streak of 4 X 100 profit, but for the next two times in a row, then you'd $200 reduction, that again would've wiped out your ENTIRE FOUR winning streaks!! Yes you are not losing money but the goal of trading is make POSITIVE profit. What's the point of trading if you are likely to just break even and make zero money all the time??!! You're just donating commissions to your broker or helping your broker get the spreads.

You can continue this exercise so long as you need but you'll see it isn't worth it if the reduction is bigger than the winning especially if you are aiming for just modest profit at a time. The reduction amount must at least fit your profit target level.

I would rather attempt to nail a tiny sum every week instead of everyday. That is more achievable since you don't need to trade regular. You just open a trade on Monday or Tuesday or even Wednesday, then shut it on friday when the SL hasn't been hit yet.