Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Higher view paid well today. Net 169. Should have been a lot higher, but I got very timid as the say went on and decided to stop for the day. I think that comes from giving back profits before, but something about that wiring needs correcting. I will add that to my list that never seems to end...
I am playing with a theory about adding to positions, have tried it a time or two but tend to set my add stops too tight. What I am trying to do is press a winner by leaving my original stop on the original position, but having very small risk to no risk stops as I add, but I wind up losing most of those contracts along the way. But I like the concept.
My biggest losing days were when I have added into losers, and I know now it depends on the day type and location as to fade versus not fade, but still that higher leverage as a trade moves has brough swift losses. I am trying to refocus that behavior to see if I can get it to go the other direction, but so far probably breaking even on it. I did that some today, and had I pulled the stop back with my others I would have made up to 4x what I did today, but my risk appetite does not work with that, so if it takes me out breakeven, nothing was lost.
Gary, since you are looking at risk appetite as it pertains to adding/scaling, have you ever looked into the Prospect Theory in the realm of behavioral finance? I am no expert on it, but one of the basic take-aways is that people in general tend to be willing to take on risk to avoid losing money, but tend to avoid risk when it comes to making money.
For example, given a choice of either being handed a sure $500 or taking a 50/50 coin flip chance at being given $1000 or $0, most people will choose the sure $500, even though the expectancy of both outcomes is the same. They are risk-averse in this case, because gains are at stake.
Conversely, given a choice of either losing $500, or a 50/50 chance of losing $1000 or $0 on a coin flip, most people will choose to take the coin flip, because they dislike the notion of losing so much that they want a chance to "break even" on this raw deal. Even though the expectancy is also the same, the same people who were risk-averse when it came to making money are suddenly risk takers when it comes to losing money.
The theory is that it takes a gain that is about twice the amount of a loss to generate the same emotional equivalent as that loss. So a $500 loss would only be offset by a $1000 gain. Said another way, making $500 does not yield the same emotional end result as making $1000 and then losing $500, even though the monetary outcome is the same.
All of these are things I have been casually studying recently, because I find it fascinating. To me, these concepts are part of understanding the puzzle of the markets, and things in this arena go hand-in-hand with understanding balance/imbalance and auction market theory. It explains perfectly why traders as a group find it so much easier to scale out than scale in, even when the market is running strongly in their direction. It explains why it's natural for people to add to losers (becoming risk takers when losses are a strong possibility), and cut winners short (become risk averse when gains are on the line). It's not logical, but it's human, and it's you and me, and it's our competitors in the market. As Sun Tzu said, "if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles."
This is fascinating stuff to me, and you may have already studied it thoroughly, but if not, enjoy!
No, I have not studied that. Do they offer any suggestions for reversing the wiring? I will add that to my library next. Thanks Josh.
I used to think it was somthing "wrong" that I did, take a 3 contract position and drop most of it early. I had a single 70 tick +/- win today, but started with 3 and got 13 and 20 on those. Seems like a waste sometimes to have bailed. And I used to really beat myself up for it in the past. It was only recently, hearing about other traders who do the same thing, and the phrase I just heard this year, "banking risk", that I started to feel good about it. But I am still interested in something different, "pressing", and knowing when and where.
Feel better soon. I am in a similar situation but am denied insurance due to pre-existing. So am waiting for October 1 open enrollment for Obamacare, which my understand is that they can no longer deny for pre-existing.
I've had several rhizotomy's in the past and got some relief for short period of time and prefer that approach to a more complex surgery like a fusion.
I'm starting to really believe in the idea of starting small and scale in.....lets me be wrong small and right big.....I've been doing this some this week and it really works well. Losers don't hurt so much and winners feel much better. Still working on getting the trail thing correct though. I often exit to early......but thats another issue entirely. Still scaling in is getting me better results than scaling out ever did. I always worried about the full size stops. Now, I can layer on size and so far my risk seems to diminish as the trade goes further and further my way. I'm sure I'll run into something that makes me rethink this but so far so good.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication, Leonardo da Vinci
Most people chose unhappiness over uncertainty, Tim Ferris