Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Yacob Hassan

How Much You Risk Your Account Per Week?

Recommended Posts

I believe that would be called luck, unless those people had systems with a 100% winrate.

 

and I believe you are right :)

But actually, he had MANY winning days in his 3 month heavy trading period. He has since slowed down, because he thinks a big part IS luck.

 

Which now takes us on another path: what is the role of luck in our trading, even if we use a semi-mechanical system?

 

It's good to know risk management-because we can't always be lucky, but how do we know WHEN we are "hot"? And figuring out when and how to "get heavy" with our size would help.

 

It's sometimes a gut feel for these natural born traders...

 

I guess a good experienced trader is a lot like a poker player. They get a prime hand and keep calling. Then the river card is flopped and it's all in..

In that situation the risk is HUGE, but they have a good feel for their opponent and if they have a full-house...it's pretty much a win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The market doesn't care if i just lost a certain percentage of my account, so unless it's for psychological recuperation or reassessing my system's reliability, I wouldn't see a point in halting my for the remainder of the week simply because I'm down. But that's just me.

 

Exactly!

 

By the way, how do you traders manage the maximum risk on a trade? Don't you have all fixed stop-losses or if not fixed, but e.g. ATR multiplied by something, in what way do you ensure it's never more than 2% of the trade? Do you experience your SLs getting bigger as your equity curve raises?

 

I'm asking because I have a fixed SL (so far). Meaning when profitable, I'm risking less and less with every trade.

 

Does your position sizing formula do the job?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, I think most of you are missing the point.

 

How much you should risk isn't a constant, it depends on how good you are at trading. If you're trades are good, then you should risk more, it's a simple concept.

 

IF you are consistent, then you should use your Kelly value, adjusting it for Risk of Ruin.

 

Losing streaks. Sure, you'll have em, but you'll also have winning streaks. It's all part of the game.

 

Mainly the thing that stops people risking a larger amount is FEAR. You shouldn't up your risk and try to live with the fear, but just take note of what you do, look back and see what could of been, gain confidence slowly, and you'll get there.

 

If you're not consistent, then OBVIOUSLY you should risk a small amount...until you become consistent, then you can MATHEMATICALLY work out what you should be doing, for most it will be more then 2%.

 

 

 

Kelly criterion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't break down risk by individual trade. I place stops where I think they are needed for a successful outcome on the trade. The more confidence you have the tighter the stops get. This works in a liquid market like ES, but won't work for YM. Liquid markets allow you to use tighter stops illiquid markets you must use wider stops.

 

My platform (Infinity AT) allows me to set an automatic daily loss limit which I set to a certain dollar level $1000. For ES I think you need to have at least 10K in your account and I think you need to be able to risk at least 1K a day but no more. If you lose that you're done for the day.

 

yours in trading

 

Jean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't break down risk by individual trade. I place stops where I think they are needed for a successful outcome on the trade. The more confidence you have the tighter the stops get. This works in a liquid market like ES, but won't work for YM. Liquid markets allow you to use tighter stops illiquid markets you must use wider stops.

 

Jean

 

Where our stop is has nothing to do with how much we risk on the trade. The difference between entry and our stop is what our % risk calculation is based upon to ensure our risk is constant across each trade. How this is determined - technical, % daily range, ATR multiple etc is a factor of what gives us the best results for our system.

 

If our risk at x% = $1000 per trade, and we risk $300 on each contract (to use contracts as an example), then we can trade 3 contracts on that trade.

 

If your system states you can run a tighter stop (which should be based on sound testing and evidence rather than confidence), then you are risking less per trade, and can trade more contracts while still only exposing $1000 per trade as your maximum loss.

 

Your performance is then a measure of your risk multiple, 1:1, 1:2, whatever the maximum is you can get from your system. If you use technical targets, then maybe you opt out of trades where your technical stop & profit result in a risk:reward that brings the probability of system success too low (ie, lower than 1:1).

 

Liquidity has nothing to do with placing our stops unless you are a massive fund manager or trading something so illiquid you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place, liquidity is more to do with whether our system is tradable on that particular market, instrument or individual equity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.