robm

Is it just my imagination, or are we getting off topic?

Nice philosophy, but the devil is in the details. For example, - It's about performing which trade? The entry trade, the proportional exits, the final exit, the stop loss? - Winning or losing occurs after what? The final exit trade? - Can you really manage probability? I've always thought the probabilities are what they are. You can recognize them, understand them, take advantage of them, but not change them. Maybe you meant the same thing, i.e., manage how you deal with probabilities. - Can you manage trades? Sure. You can decide to exit when your trading plan would say otherwise -- usually not good. As soon as your entry trade prints, you start getting more information about whether you have a winning or losing position; or even that it's not clear which. I've always thought a good trading plan takes advantage of this new information. That way, you can deal with the inevitable emotion that arises from the winning/losing feedback. A trading plan that does not account for the additional, post-entry information, leaves you only with a stale prediction about the market and emotion. The prediction, of course, is your set of targets and stops. The emotion, of course, can lead you to ruin. So, performance excellence is a great mindset when the trading plan has an answer for changing conditions between entry and exit. FWIW, Rob

At first I disagreed with this. TL is now one of the few sites I bother to read. I've been lurking here for a couple of years; expecting it to degenerate. Hasn't happened. So, even though there have been rough moments, overall the conscious effort to keep things civil has worked well to attract the "more seasoned/experienced" (and I might add "mature") participants. Without the moderation, I doubt TL would have achieved this level of quality. Personally, I don't think the moderation needs to change. But in the spirit of continuous improvement, I gave it some thought. Your last sentence finally drove it home for me. I keep reading where people say use the ignore button. It occurs to me I've never done that. The reasons are mostly irrelevant, except for one: I don't believe it helps adds value to the community for me simply to stick my head in the sand. If I (and others) ignore the same user, does it have any real affect on the community? Does that person know that X number of other users are ignoring them, leading to self regulation for those who might actually care? Is there a way for moderators to use the ignore count as evidence that the user is a rotten apple most of the time? If the moderator has this information, then MMS rule #2 is easier to swallow. For example, if I make someone angry with my next post (#3 whoopeee), then I would like to assume MMS would consider that I've had 2 whole posts without anyone hitting the ignore button. On the other hand, if I already had 50 ppl ignoring me, it would be easier for MMS to decide the first complaint about my post #3 is enough to quickly delete it. The ignore button could then be more of a community moderation aid in addition to a great personal censoring tool. If all of this is already possible, well... oops. I've wasted your time. Sorry. Rob

Assuming your initial stop matches what capital you are willing to risk (e.g., 1%), have you tried changing what profit you are willing to risk once the market gives you a profit on a particular trade? As soon as you make the initial decision to enter a position, you will be getting additional information from the market. If the information you get is that the market agrees with your position, you will have a profit. Put it in the bank and treat it as capital. In other words, move your stop loss or take some portion of that profit out of your position. Don't give it all back. I'm with SpearPointTrader. Protect what the market gives you. That mentality should not stop with your initial risk; it should continue as the market develops after your entry. Rob I think this may be my first post here. Been lurking for quite some time. Refreshing to find a site with serious, civil discussions.