sdoma

Not true. What would make you money in that scenario is your trade and money management. Cut your losers short and ride the winners.

A note about the coin flip generator you used. Remember, the results you are looking at are not truly random if they are generated by an algorithm. By its nature, it is mathematical and predictable. The market has some qualities of randomness without being truly random. At times, it does have purpose. At other times, you are looking at random-like noise. Knowing which instance you are observing is probably the most important skill you can have as a trader.

Your teacher? Who says I'd bother with you? I was just asking you to define yourself clearly. Most people think they're being much more clear than they really are. I asked you to define a swing trader because for some people, a swing trader can be an intraday trader. For others, they trade swings anywhere from a few days to a week long. It's just one of those things that people tend to define differently. But hey, I don't say THE TRUTH in capital letters either. Maybe I just don't understand you. My point was that even traders who are going to keep their trades on a few days will often read the order flow to execute, especially with size.

Define swing traders. What time frame are you thinking about? Also, I'd challenge the idea that only ultra short time scalpers need to read the DOM, I think any intraday player needs to invest heavily in learning that skill.

Si vis pacem, para bellum. Translated: "If you seek peace, prepare for war." This simply means that strength is the best (though not perfect) deterrent to violence. There are good people in this world, and there are evil people. There are also people whose actions are determined more by circumstance and benefit than their morality. You can throw as much kumbaya at me as you want, but not 75 years ago, in the United States, a liberal socialist democrat (a saint of the Democrat party) jailed an entire ethnic group without due process of law, and in the process robbed them of all the earthly possessions they couldn't carry. I know you aren't American, but just look up the internment of ethnic Japanese American citizens. That was in modern times, brother, and it's one of many examples, most of which are much worse. Oh, and those violent gangs who made a truce? That happens all the time in organized crime, because eventually they figure out that if they divide up the territories, everybody makes more money. Ask yourself, has that stopped them from terrorizing the innocent people that live in those neighborhoods? Has that stopped their violent recruitment efforts that can take otherwise decent kids and turn them criminal? If you had ever experienced a neighborhood in the grip of a gang, you would never use them as an example, EVER. I applaud the fact that you're positive. I am a realist. There exists positive and negative in the world, and ignoring either end is a mistake.

The UK has a much lower overall murder rate than the US. It is, however, irrelevant to the gun debate. The US has always had a much higher murder rate than the UK, even going back to colonial times. Also, for a large stretch of that time, neither place had any gun control measures. A more interesting exercise is to look at all types of murder in the UK in the years leading up to the passing of stringent gun control measures, and then at the years from then until now. Murders actually spiked after the implementation of the ban and remained elevated for a few years, and are now tracking about the same as before the ban. You can say whatever you want about Britain's gun control laws, but they don't appear to have helped curb what violence and murder Britain has. Other countries also bear out a lack of connection between gun ownership rates, gun control laws, and murder rates. Countries like Russia, Honduras, and Jamaica have very strict gun laws and astronomical murder rates. China and Japan have similarly strict laws and low rates. Switzerland has very high rates of ownership due to compulsory military service and also has an extremely low crime rate. Study after study have simply failed to find a correlation between legal firearms ownership and murder.

It's not asinine on its face, it's asinine because it's an obvious straw man argument, and the whole thing doesn't make sense anyway for what you're trying to do with it. The only thing that would happen in this crazy hypothetical is that they would break out. Also, it's possible that (in this magical scenario that we keep them in) while murders or justifiable killings would increase, rapes and assaults would decrease. Harder to rape a guy who is packing. As an aside, not everyone in prison is violent, many are in there because of our ridiculous drug policies. The actual valid point in your argument actually supports a core pro-liberty belief. A small, armed group of people can control a much larger unarmed one. This has reams of historical precedent, to the point that you can't really argue it. You actively disarm a group of people or an individual for one reason - to control them. Some state control is good, as it is required to protect individual rights and set economic and legal frameworks in place (i.e. contracts, non-violent dispute resolution) that make civilized society possible. If you disarm an entire populace, however, and keep weapons in the hands of the chosen few, the level of state control becomes too great and its susceptibility to abuse increases dramatically, to the point that it becomes near-certainty. I'm not saying that you have to let everyone have a gun; people like children, violent felons and the mentally ill shouldn't be able to own guns. In other words, if you've proven yourself dangerous, unlawful and/or can't enter a legal contract, I'm OK with you not being allowed to bear a firearm. I don't want the crazy schizophrenic homeless man (that the ACLU has decreed has the capacity to decide he shouldn't be institutionalized) packing heat. But there has to be a very good reason to prove someone is dangerous before denying them a constitutional right. Sandy Hook was a tragedy, a truly terrible thing. The ugly fact of the matter is that no existing, reasonable, or constitutional control would have kept Lanza from getting his hands on a firearm. He also didn't need a rifle to slaughter tykes. Handguns would have been just as effective at that range, and with a little practice, you can change a 7 or 10 round magazine in under a second. Being disarmed by a 6 year old isn't going to happen when you change mags. Having six thousand rounds of ammunition in your house is also irrelevant, as you can't carry more than a hundred or so on you - ammunition is bulky and HEAVY. The vast majority of criminals have no more than several rounds. People who have thousands of rounds are target shooters or law enforcement who buy in bulk to keep costs down. Before you endorse policies, I implore you, consider a few questions: 1. What will this policy actually accomplish? 2. Who could conceivably benefit? I.e., cui bono? 3. What are the second-order effects of this policy? Is there any way it can be exploited or gamed? I await your response.

Perhaps more effective methods of controlling the prisoners? Tactics do evolve. Another friend of mine has a brother who was a prison guard for about a decade, I'll ask him the next time I see him. But really, this is just an enormous straw-man argument with no real insights to offer on the world outside, and really there's no way we can test the hypothesis and even figure out what would happen inside. It's just so moot. I just had to respond to the argument you made and you have to admit it was asinine.

Whatever you're smoking, I need some. How about we try a logical argument, shall we? Maybe, just maybe, the murder rate is lower in prison because the prisoners are locked up most of the day, and under watch 24 hours a day. What do you think the murder rate would be for normal people under those conditions? And what do you think the murder rate would be for those same prisoners if we just locked them all into a compound with no staff and airdropped supplies in? Further, if you separate out the murder rates for white males, I'll bet you it's a hell of a lot lower than 4 per 100k. So, you yourself are probably much safer than the average prisoner. Finally, murder isn't the only type of violence you can experience in prison. They get in fights all the time, and sexual assault can be fairly common, depending on what prison you're in. I worked with a guy whose brother did time for accessory to murder. Saw someone get shot and was too afraid to talk, supposedly. The stories his brother told him would curdle your blood.

You could foil a trigger lock, or crack a conventional safe? That would involve stealing the key, and if your parents kept theirs on them, it would have been pretty difficult. But at that point, you didn't beat the safe, and you are looking at the gun in a controlled environment (Mom is there). That's what should happen, because it would have sated your curiosity. At 13, your parents should have taken you shooting and taught you proper gun safety, and even then, they should still be locked up. Believe it or not, gun safety becomes very real after you've actually fired one and felt its power, and at any gun range, safety is PARAMOUNT. They don't mess around at all, and they aren't nicey nice about it either. That attitude sinks into a kid. I'm not sure what stats you're relying on to make this judgment. The chances of both are very, very low. Ever had much experience with meth addicts? How would you like to watch that happen to your kid, and be helpless to stop it? Don't you think if you lost a kid like that you'd be rabidly anti-drug? Don't give me your "they won't" excuses, it's a cop out so you don't have to contemplate the scenario.

You can keep your gun in a biometric gun safe in your room. They cost a couple hundred bucks and there's no key to find or combination to guess. Works off your finger print (and your spouse, the safe holds multiple profiles). Plus, in a high stress situation you don't have to work a little key into it or key in a combo. Problem solved, unless one of your kids bashes the other one's head against the safe. I love how binary you are. It's either don't keep guns, or kids get shot. You're a smart guy, but you are reasoning emotionally. You might feel differently about the war on drugs if you had addiction problems in your family, especially meth or heroin. But you don't, so you can be logical about it.

You're kind of misunderstanding the point the founders were making. Remember, many of the founders were agnostic or deists, so it wasn't religious fervor driving the statement. They were careful to point out that all people have certain rights which are given to them by a higher power, and are not bestowed by government. Thus, the government cannot revoke those rights as it pleases. The Constitution recognizes and protects those rights. If they had just said, "hey, the govt is giving you these rights," that means that govt could take them away when it became expedient.

You reminded me of a quote, so I went and dug it up for you. I'd like you to think about it and your idea of government as omnipotent. I think there's truth in it what he has to say.

And this presupposes that law enforcement and military personnel would move in lockstep to do so, or that the elites would have a drone army. Devil ex machina? That's not the case, and with all of the former LEO and Vets out there, including SpecOps guys, an American insurgency would be much, much more difficult to defeat, and impossible to control, as long as there are weapons out there for them to use. That's why we have the 2nd amendment. From ambushes, to bombings, to sniper attacks from people that blend in with your supporters, a tyrannical government would have a great deal of difficulty holding on to power. Think of what a couple of former Delta snipers could do with Barrett 50 cal rifles. Those rifles can kill from over a mile away. Would a tyrant dare make an appearance in the open at that point? Again, I am not a proponent of arming all faculty, and especially not of requirements that they do so. I did hear an intriguing proposal from a friend of mine, that every principal's office have a biometric safe that, when opened by one of a few people in the school, would automatically alert all police depts in the area to an armed intruder in the school. Inside it would have a shotgun with bean bag rounds inside which are non-lethal but capable of incapacitating an assailant, even in body armor. One shot from that would have put Lanza down for the count. Not saying that should be done, but there are a range of ideas out there that should be looked at that, at reasonable cost, would prevent and/or minimize deaths from these shooters. Locks on doors and potential one button lock down capability come to mind. Actually making schools hard to get into is another. It can be done without making them look like a prison.

I'm not sure you really considered all the data they represented. First, they compare crime rates in places with heavy gun control to places without, and point out that there is no correlation. Some places with gun control have low crime, others high. Same for places without. They postulate that in many high-crime gun control districts, gun control was instituted as a reaction to high crime rates, then examine the data before and after the regs are put in place, showing that violent crime often spikes following. They are careful to make the point, however, that more guns doesn't equal less crime, but nor does it equal more. They attribute violent crime rates to socioeconomic factors, which is not a conservative position, but a liberal one. As I said above, the comparison was not willy-nilly. I think you just did a quick scan of the study without really reading the analysis. Actually, this result is CONSISTENT with their findings, that firearms laws do not heavily impact the overall crime/murder/suicide rates either way. I could make a convincing case that the differences between Chicago and NYC are due to NYC's use of stop-and-frisk (perhaps unconstitutional itself) and Chicago's rampant political corruption and public housing policies, which are theorized to be gang-creating. Chicago's gang problem is much worse than NYC's, and the ghetto residents hold a lot of political power here. Chicago's police force has also been pared back to 9,000 and change from over 13,000 under Daley. Actually, that depends on the situation and the people involved. Let's say that you and three of your good friends are forced to exist in close proximity with guys that are Latin Kings. Let's say that one of you dissed them in some way, and now they got a beef with you. Do you think that your being armed would increase the chances of violence being perpetrated against you? Is there a higher chance that they would try something, or a lower chance?

The info-graphic was pointing out the flaws of the government's model for identifying a so-called "assault weapon." The actual technical term refers to a select-fire (a switch that toggles full-auto and semi-auto fire modes) rifle designed for engagements up to 400 meters. I will bold to stress: True assault weapons have been banned for over 40 years, and machine guns since the 1930s. The term has, however, been co-opted by the media. The assault weapons ban of the 90's focused on so-called accessories, features of the weapon. No one feature would get the weapon banned, it was more than two of them together on the same gun. So, basically, they banned guns that looked scary but you could argue were no more effective. In the picture he showed, the only difference other than the scope was the stock and grip, which don't increase the weapon's effectiveness, especially at close quarters. The lowly 22 is the most oft-used caliber in murder weapons because it's quiet, cheap and abundant, but soldiers haven't ever used them for a reason. So, your assertion is that the US govt would engage in wholesale slaughter of American citizens, up to and including carpet bombing large swaths of its own infrastructure? I was pointing out the aforementioned insurgencies to demonstrate that has no historical basis. I did multiple searches using different terms trying to find situations where a student was accidentally shot with a security guard's gun and couldn't find any. This is not to say it hasn't happened, but doesn't appear to be the risk you claim. Also, the Clinton administration funded a program called School Shield which funded putting cops in schools. It was discontinued because of the cost, but at no point was a kid shot with a cop's gun in the program. Dailykos is reporting that a newly hired security guard left his gun in the school bathroom where he worked. Accidents can happen, I agree, but like everything in life, this has to be weighed against the benefit of an armed officer present when a psycho starts shooting. You have to weigh each risk against the other, don't you think?

I posted this up for you to read before, but I doubt you did. The Harvard Law Center (hardly a conservative bunch) did an exhaustive study of murder rates worldwide and found zero correlation between legal gun ownership and murder, suicide, or overall crime rates. Here: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Zilch, nada, zero. Know it all East Coast liberals are just as bad as know-nothing rednecks, you know. The 2nd Amendment was specifically written to give the population the ability to form into armed groups to help fight off foreign aggressors, and to prevent the population from being easily controlled by a tyrant. In other words, to serve as a deterrent. Just like we've annihilated those insurgents in Afghanistan, right? As we did in Vietnam? You are making several enormously bad assumptions here. The first is that the end goal is to kill all adversaries. The goal is not utter destruction, but control. We could have killed half of Afghanistan's population by now if we so wished, but that wasn't the goal. The second is that you are assuming that all law enforcement and military personnel would act in lockstep to exterminate a large portion of the American public, which would not happen. There are already sheriffs who have stated that they won't enforce gun laws they believe to be unconstitutional. If they won't even do that, how do you expect them to annihilate people in 3 seconds? You're also not considering the many retired special forces and military personnel who would not only fight, but train the other insurgents. Controlling this insurgency would be infinitely more difficult than Afghanistan or Iraq. My dad is a product liability attorney, and let me tell you, there are millions of ways to die or be disfigured. People are killed by space heaters, kids drown in 5 gallon buckets, choke on balloons, are killed by exploding propane tanks, think that their life vests will allow them to swim around a whirlpool at the base of a dam, and these are just some of my dad's cases I know about. And don't think these are one and done occurrences, these happen multiple times a year. Yes, firearms can be dangerous, but as with most things, the danger generally stems from sloppiness on the part of the user. Three of those people were shot when someone was taking a loaded(!) shotgun out the case, and it discharged. The fact that it was loaded was negligence. People are negligent all the time, but you punish the negligent person and improve the product where possible. You don't ban things willy-nilly.

Dear lord, you are stupid. Seriously, you've actually turned stupidity into a debating strategy. "Hmm, I can't argue him point for point, and I'm too lazy to do my research...wait, I have it! I'll just say really stupid things that make no sense, and mix them up with cliches like 'That sounds good, but doesn't work in the real world' and 'responsible adults just know this is what is right.'" Here's the facts on the Columbine security guard. The killings all occurred BEFORE he engaged them. After that, he basically harried and distracted them and they weren't able to kill anyone else. After the police arrived, they took their own lives as the game was up. In that time, he provided cover for a group of 15 students while they made their escape. You can say whatever you want, but a lot more kids would have died if not for that guy, and I can't stand to watch you ridicule and shit on him. I don't mind people that don't agree with me, but I can't stand idiots.

Here's the problem with your thinking that you haven't grasped (surprise surprise): No government agency knew the kid was as nuts as he was. The parents kept it a secret. How would that have shown up on a background check? What is the point of putting in a buzz in system to keep out undesirables who might hurt kids, and then make the doors of glass? That's like making a safe of glass. It's supposed to keep out crazy people, that is its intended purpose. You might as well put a screen door on a submarine. Also, putting locks on doors is COMMON SENSE! Many schools have them regardless, so they can seal off rooms when not in use, and especially rooms with lab or computer equipment. Legalized concealed carry takes care of a lot of the other places. Again, shooters hit places people aren't likely to be armed. The Aurora killer bypassed several movie theaters closer to his house and hit one that didn't allow guns. The shopping mall killer blew his brains out when confronted by a concealed carry holder not because he was afraid of dying, obviously, but because it didn't fit his script. I didn't say he was. My point was that you don't have to be a crazy conspiracy theorist to think critically about the narratives the media force upon you. It DID, actually. I'll quote, and cite: See my quote above. Also, often these security guards are sworn police officers, military vets and/or retired officers. My friend's daughter goes to a nice private school here next to downtown Chicago and their head of security (armed of course) is a former vet, cop, and weapons expert who teaches Chicago police as his side job. You aren't fit to carry his jock strap, I'll bet, and I'll bet he is more than the equal of a shithead who would try to hurt those kids. I agree, you shouldn't put kids and guns up in blenders and mix them. Also, a real adult would actually gain some experience with the subject matter he expounds upon, but I suppose that is too much to expect of you. Here's a little something to chew on: Guns don't just go off in the holster. As long as the gun is safely holstered and has the safety on, there's no danger. If you really wanted to go further, you could mandate that the clip is out of the gun in a separate place in the holster.

Generally lunatics do not have the right to purchase a gun. Also, I want to know, at what point do we turn our gaze on the administrators and (possibly) security consultants that botched the security here? The money was there, the competence was not. It is naive to think that most guns used to commit crimes are legally obtained. The stats show that they seldom are. In Lanza's case, the guns he had were illegally obtained since he murdered his mother and stole them. The guy who shot the first responders in NYC used a straw purchaser. What is most interesting to me is that you get it when it comes to the War on Drugs - prohibition creates a black market and an increase in crime - and yet you think there would be no black market for guns. In fact, with 3D printers and custom metal fabrication getting easier and easier, the day of the printed gun is not that far away. What then? Your point, while true, is irrelevant. I wasn't saying that was their intended purpose there, I was noting the fact that these schools aren't generally targeted by lunatics. Criminals of all types, insane or not, go for the softest target they can find. This has been borne out in criminology studies. I never said faculty should be armed, but if they are, I don't see how a student gets shot as long as the teacher is properly trained and the gun is holstered properly with the safety on. Many guns also have mechanisms that prevent them from discharging if dropped. At which point, couldn't they just bring a gun in from home? Or do you think they will be stopped by the "no guns" sign? Chad and Todd are stereotypical rich guys' names. You'll find that rich socialist types generally have guns. Look at Dianne Feinstein, she has one of the only concealed carry licenses in California. Look at what they DO, not what they SAY. They SAY no guns, and own them themselves. They also take their children's security very seriously. Really? Criminological studies don't seem to agree with you. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Read this study. It's long, but worth it. Harvard criminologists found no correlation between firearm ownership and crime. Now, they didn't find a strong more guns = less crime conclusion either, but to me, it still contradicts your stats that you haven't posted.

Because all of the other comments in your post aren't inflammatory? At least the other guys will tickle my pickle with some stats while they're at it, you're just being lazy. Let's face it, people overreact to school shootings because they have an entirely illusory sense of 100% total security, and panic when it is shattered. You might as well live in fear of your kid dying via lightning strike, because it is equally as likely, but you'll happily sell all of us down the river so you can preserve your naivete. And don't give me that "for the children" crap, because kids get killed every day by the boatload, are sold into sex slavery and the like, and very few middle class people are even aware, let alone care. This hits home because it could happen to them. As with lightning strikes, the probabilities can be lowered from incredibly unlikely to nearly impossible if you take simple precautions, which Sandy Hook Elementary did NOT, despite spending a bunch of money on a security overhaul the year before. For example, how about actually having doors that can resist entry by an armed person? Many of the admittedly contradictory accounts of the shooting have Lanza simply blowing out the glass doors and walking in. That's right, they had a system where they had to buzz you in, but the doors were made of glass. While we're at it, how about *gasp* locks on the classroom doors? You know, so teachers don't have to barricade them with their bodies, or shove a filing cabinet up against them. In fact, I can't believe nobody has called out the people who thought it was a good idea to teach the kids mass shooter drills but not actually beef up security for the school. In fact, why do you think they call classroom locks Columbine locks? Specifically because they help prevent or contain these situations. Don't tell me this wealthy Connecticut school district couldn't afford $200 per classroom to install them. Also, whether or not it's actually necessary, I think it's funny that President Obama called the idea of armed security in schools absurd when Sidwell, the tony private school his kids attend, has a large armed security staff, not counting the Secret Service. In fact, here's a shocker - most of these prep schools, especially in urban areas, have armed security. But you just nod like a good little doggie when Chad and Todd tell you that it's simply absurd for your children to have an armed guard in school. Urban public schools have police officers assigned to them as well. So it looks like the middle class schools are the exposed underbelly, and guess where all the school shootings occur? In other words, you can think critically about this without being an Alex Jones type. Stop accepting the narrative that's being rammed down your throat and think for yourself.

Do you have a trading plan, and clearly defined reasons for entering and exiting, or are you purely discretionary? You seem to just use this thread as a trading log, when I thought we were discussing method and theory here. If you want to get better, you need to show your work more so we can serve as a feedback mechanism and help you improve. That being said, like I told you before, don't get mad if you don't get all of the move, just make a note of it and see if there's a pattern. Also, you said you had no reason for exiting, which means you were going off of pure emotion. You scratch a lot of trades, and I think you were frustrated and didn't want to scratch again. I'd say go with the Stoxx over the Dax. Dax is a brutal contract, it's a big tick size and moves like it's on crack (for a stock index at least). The Eurostoxx is much deeper and trades more like ES, which all of you seem to prefer. A guy in my shop traded Dax and it wasn't for me.

I'm not trading today, just watching (bank holidays tend to be unpredictable). Something to remember is that volume today is really low, and volume correlates highly with range and volatility. Reason being that it's a bank holiday, and bonds aren't trading, which means a lot of hedgers, both human and algo, that normally make trades in the stock indexes aren't doing so today. I'll attach a chart with a quick and dirty relative volume proxy for you. On these types of days, if you're going to play anything, it might as well be rejections of extremes, however you quantify it - failed attempts to run lows and highs, tests of VWAP 2nd basis, evidence of responsive action on initiative action away from Value, etc, etc. Oh, and also, be even quicker to cut a loser than normal on these days, as when things do get wacky, they can get really wacky. As for that chart, here it is. It's a 15 minute chart of the ES that has a relative volume measure. That is, for each 15 minute segment of the day, it compares it to the same segment of the day X number of days back. In other words, it takes the 8:30 - 8:45 time frame and compares it to 8:30 - 8:45 yesterday, the day before, and so on for as many days as you want. I tend to find the greatest relevance in comparing to the last 5 or 10 sessions. Here you can see that, on a low volatility day like today, that volumes are seriously off of the blue line (which is the relative norm. Look at the quick part of the drop yesterday - volume is significantly above the norm. It's not perfect, but it can often tell you something about the structure at a glance.

This was what I was thinking as well. There were actually several signs that we were going to retrace instead of making new highs, which GOB was betting on. I'll attach a couple of charts. One is a bit of a longer viewpoint, the other an intraday chart with the previous day's data included. If you look at the longer term chart, notice that we've been moving upward day-on-day for several days already, without a significant retrace. We already have one gap which has gone unfilled, showing fairly strong buying action. While this doesn't turn my bias short, I understand that our chances of the market backfilling are somewhat elevated. In other words, it would take powerful buying action to propel this market further up, essentially creating a parabolic type of move. NFP came out somewhat strong, but essentially right on expectations. Also, examining the numbers revealed that the dip below 8% was mostly due to part time positions being filled for the holidays. So, I went into this day basically with a wait-and-see attitude. It opened up choppy, testing both down and up several times before making an attempt at new highs which, rather than being strongly rejected by sellers, just failed to find new buyers. The speed with which they hammered it down off those highs was a sign that a long bias might not be prudent. At this point, if you choose to get short, your hypothesis should be that the market would return to more familiar ground, the high volume node it laid down yesterday. It proceeded to do just that. I made some money yesterday on the short side. I'm not perfect by any means, but thinking out your bet to the end in relation to the greater context can help you filter out bad bets. Basically, if you bet on new highs you bet on exuberant buying, which was invalidated by the choppiness and multiple rejections of new highs on the open. I support that analysis with the observations noted on the charts.

You're asking the wrong question. The question should not be, "Why did I exit so soon?" The question is, "Did I trade according to my plan?" The second question should be "Do I consistently exit too early?" Occasionally missing a big move doesn't necessarily mean your targets and trade management are incorrect. You could be spot on 90% of the time. This also assumes that by "early" you mean you are leaving a significant amount of profits on the table. Like Joe Kennedy said, "Only a fool holds out for top dollar." If you look back at your trades over a significant amount of time and conclude that you do, indeed, leave an inappropriate amount of your profits on the table, we can look at your targeting and adjust or perhaps replace your exit criteria.