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.

MightyMouse

Scaling Out of Losers?

Recommended Posts

Has anyone ever scaled out of a losing position in just the opposite way you scale into a position?

 

In a day trade, it would seem to make sense to have as many contracts on as possible when you are going to be right and as few on when you are going to be wrong. Going “all in” and then “all out” at a stop loss tends to cause big swings in your P/L when there’s high volatility. “Scaling in” minimizes your loss somewhat, but minimizes your gain too if you can’t get the full position on.

 

Scaling out of a loser would seem to have the attractive effect of your right positions having the max contracts on and your losing positions having fewer contracts on than your max. Mathematically, over the same range of prices, in the case of a full loss, the “loser scale out” loss would be somewhere in between the “scale in” and “all in” trades. In the case where you are correct right away, your gain would equal the “all in” gain and be greater than the “scale in” gain. The tricky trades would seem to be the scratch type trades.

 

Anyway, I have never read of anyone doing this and was wondering if anyone has experience with it or have heard of it in any shape or form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it depends on logic of your entries and levels of confidence (if you are able to define them). Maybe the reason why this approach is not popular is that people tend to keep their stops tight and there is no room for scaling out? Maybe they rather exit their full position and then re-enter full again? But if somebody likes wider stops then this approach could be applied. For example, if you buy 3 contracts at an upside breakout from a narrow range, you could place one stop below range resistance, one below midpoint and one below support. This would have some logic. As price would drop after your entry you would decrease size with decreasing confidence in the upward continuation.

Just ideas of a beginner. But to find out whether this approach is beneficial for your type of entries there is only one way: to test it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your confidence level of your position and what the market will do with your position are two completely separate things. A market that is turning your position into a loser will continue to turn your position into a loser whether you are confident about the trade working out or not.

 

Somehow, when you go long for example, you are buying at a level where there is support because in situations similar to this one in the past, support has held up. However, the fact is that, though this situation may look similar to one's you have experienced in the past, it is not going to be exactly like the one's in the past; otherwise, we would all have a “set it and forget it” algorithm and have nothing to talk about. But, you’re really only estimating support and you can be anywhere from 100% right to 0% right about whether your entry was at support. Unfortunately, you can be 100% right about your entry being support, but if you are trading in the wrong timeframe, you could still have a loser.

 

Sure, when you get filled, if the position moves a little bit against you, there’s no reason to panic. But, say, for example, that you are day trading and your signals are generated from a 5 minute timeframe. If the average range of a 5 minute bar is 20 ticks and your stop is 20 ticks and the position has moved against you 10 ticks, you have to agree that you are much more likely now to get stopped out of your position by white noise movements of the market. Maintaining the same level of confidence, here, may cloud one’s ability to be objective. If you were still truly confident about the position, given the new market information (the market has brought you 10 ticks closer to being stopped out with a 20 tick loss), wouldn’t you want to move your stop back another 10 ticks to compensate for volatility, giving you a potential loss of 30 ticks if you are still as confident? That is never a good idea.

 

The point of this thread is to see if we can figure out a way to better maximize profits by minimizing costs. One of the greatest costs in our business is our losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone ever scaled out of a losing position in just the opposite way you scale into a position?

 

In a day trade, it would seem to make sense to have as many contracts on as possible when you are going to be right and as few on when you are going to be wrong. Going “all in” and then “all out” at a stop loss tends to cause big swings in your P/L when there’s high volatility. “Scaling in” minimizes your loss somewhat, but minimizes your gain too if you can’t get the full position on.

 

Scaling out of a loser would seem to have the attractive effect of your right positions having the max contracts on and your losing positions having fewer contracts on than your max. Mathematically, over the same range of prices, in the case of a full loss, the “loser scale out” loss would be somewhere in between the “scale in” and “all in” trades. In the case where you are correct right away, your gain would equal the “all in” gain and be greater than the “scale in” gain. The tricky trades would seem to be the scratch type trades.

 

Anyway, I have never read of anyone doing this and was wondering if anyone has experience with it or have heard of it in any shape or form.

 

You might want to take a look at 'Phantom of the Pits' if this interests you. It's a free ebook. There is a short version and a long version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might want to take a look at 'Phantom of the Pits' if this interests you. It's a free ebook. There is a short version and a long version.

 

I read that a few months ago. It was a good and his rules make a lot of sense, but he is a long term positional trader and gives you great advice if you intend to build a position to take advantage of a longer term trend. But, day trading is a very different animal. IMO you really can't apply both of his rules to day trading, unless I am missing something.

 

However, his thought about “not letting the market prove your position wrong” is something to the effect of what I am after. In that, your losing positions when your stops are hit are not as big as your winning positions.

 

 

Thanks for the reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In markets that can be characterized as reverting to a mean, scaling in and out could work. The problem traders must overcome is that when you are wrong and price continues to trend against your position, your losses can quickly become significant. Since retail traders often have insufficient capital to begin with, unless you have a strong mathematical advantage, one or two strong moves against you will probably take you out of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read that a few months ago. It was a good and his rules make a lot of sense, but he is a long term positional trader and gives you great advice if you intend to build a position to take advantage of a longer term trend. But, day trading is a very different animal. IMO you really can't apply both of his rules to day trading, unless I am missing something.

 

However, his thought about “not letting the market prove your position wrong” is something to the effect of what I am after. In that, your losing positions when your stops are hit are not as big as your winning positions.

 

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

Yes, perhaps not much help to a scalper:). Reminiscences is another good read. You get lines like (paraphrased) 'I let the market have 200 shares to see how it took it'. I love that book. One lesson it provides is the perils of over leverage and using un-realised profits to 'upside down' pyramid.

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

    • 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/ 
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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