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)
Nice post. I was just sitting here thinking about how erratic the market can be. I was long the 30 yr, in a nice profit. Exited on a whim - no technicals, order flow involved. Then, in a microflash, the ES order flow has a huge buy on Jigsaw, and almost takes out the o/n high. The 30 yr tanked in a heartbeat right back to almost my entry point. So here's the point: you never know what the market is going to do. Intuition comes with experience. Sheer luck getting out of the bond trade a few minutes ago before it tanked was just that - sheer luck. At the time I felt it was going higher. The ES was at a low, numbers looked good etc.
The most difficult part of this business is the element of randomness - there are some things you just can't know.
Anyway, as I'm writing the ES tanked down again and the 30 yr is back to almost my exit point. It's snowing outside - I think I'll take the pups out for a romp in the snow - I think randomness might be the order of the day!
Awesome post Bob. I think the whole discussion highlights the fact that we, as traders, need to find and use what that we can personally identify with, the tools and methods that really resonate with us. One has to take all of this and make it their own. Good stuff.
Do you happen to remember which FT71 webinar that was? I'd like to check it out.
Nice post which I think gives people a fairly good idea about Ed's style.
I just wanted to mention that Ed's overall trading experience is probably nearing 20 years. That, to me, means he definitely knows what he's doing.
I keep labouring the point but I think it's a fundamentally important one: there are people that, for a variety of reasons, never manage to "break the wall". There's a video of Josh Kaufman where I seem to remember he calls that the 'stupidity barrier', not because people are stupid but because they feel like they are struggling and they feel stupid (nothing could be further from the truth).
So, in trading unfortunately many never manage to break the threshold (I believe the main reason is psychological, the second is probably lack of capital, although that could be somewhat overcome), but those who do, or are in the process of doing so, suddenly 'get it', and @Inletcap reached an expertise level that allowed him to fine-tune his positions throughout the day through scaling-in/out, using 'rinse and repeat' techniques, etc. - but he could do so because he - in my view - had seen it all before. You simply don't get through 10+ years trading in the markets without experiencing many setbacks but never giving up.
Back to the topic at hand, I too selected "Never scale-in,period", but I also selected the two "Often scale-in" choices. I selected those 3 because I think they represent the stages of development that people could go from and to.
I never heard of people that "always scale in", but that's just me.
That 10+ year experience thing is a very important point.
When someone's good at something, it seems "intuitive" to them -- they "just know" what to do. We don't always realize that anything is "intuitive," once you've thoroughly learned it and done it long enough and well enough. Until then, not so much -- and there's struggle and unproductive effort.
All that time in the trenches was definitely part of how Ed could do something easily that seems difficult to the point of being incomprehensible to most of us. (I include myself .)
Why you should add to winners and never add to losers
I recently got an email from Kevin Davey of KJ Trading, aka kevinkdog, regarding his latest blog post entitled Peel Off Trading (. Kevin is a highly respected member of nexusfi.com (formerly BMT) …
Interesting this topic comes up now because it was being debated in the yesterday, and I myself have been testing different ideas with multiple contracts.
The big thing that I have learned is that scaling in really needs to factor in the average ranges of your instrument. I will try to explain with ZN as an example because it's ranges are small.
The average rotation in ZN is 4-5 ticks. That's not to say that it doesn't get to 8 ticks or even 16, just that it is by far the most common rotation. It may be hard to get filled on one side as well so it's not uncommon to take a 2-3 tick winner in ZN or a loser of the same. So lets say you get in, and it goes two ticks against you. The trade still looks good so you you add a second contract. It goes two more ticks against you so you're now at -4 + -2 = -6 ticks. Of course now you're at the bottom of a 4 tick range which would be a place of interest to buy, but you've already taken on your max risk. You end up stopping out right at the bottom of the move, and we all know how crappy that feels.
On the other side your original target from the first contract is going to be +4 ticks. So if it goes down two ticks against you and then up 6 ticks from there to your original target you actually make 4+6 = 10 ticks. Yes, that's more than the -6 you lose on the bad trade, but what is your probability? It requires more movement to get to that target. More than the average rotation which means it is significantly less likely. So then maybe you have to take your profit at 2 ticks above your original entry for only +6. Now you're just spinning your wheels.
What if you only do it when you're winning? It goes up 2 and so you add another contract. If it keeps going you get +6 on the average rotation. You could even take one off for the +2 and let the rest run for maybe more. What if it goes against you though? Well if it drops that average 4 you're now down 6 ticks or more.
Now imagine that the average range is something like 10 ticks, and we're averaging in over a range of 2-4 ticks? That whole scenario plays out very differently doesn't it? So averaging into a trade isn't necessarily bad. It just kind of depends on your instrument. If the spots you are adding a second contract is half the average rotation, then you get these problems. The ranges are such that you can very easily end up buying highs or selling lows with averaging in. Not saying it shouldn't be done. In ZN I can sometimes trade across that range 2-3 times and get my theoretical average well below that stop. There's big advantages to that, but not if you're taking -6 or -8 on the losers. You have to have rules and precautions to ensure that you don't fall into that issue. Let someone else buy it, let the range get established, then start averaging in. Then you're much more likely to be able to grab a tick or two and start building a buffer.
Now on the other side I've met a lot of traders through , and almost every big disaster was caused by averaging into losers on a trend day. Misuse of such strategies blows up more accounts than anything else, no doubt about it!