Ya, I must admit it, the 1st trade was a bad one in all aspects, but these things do happen when day trading, I am sure you already know that. I was convinced TOO much of ES going back to the daily PP/yesterday's close level with Oil advancing and a tiny gap in the index on the open, that my anticipation of that action has put me on the wrong side, I was wrong to take that trade and staying in it. What dissapoints me more, is the fact that I did not trade a perfect WRB later in the morning and that sucks - trading perception and not trading a primary signal A good lesson though.
Not at all, I think my reversal today proved that I am not picking Ts/Bs, neither do I have a single outlook on what might happen or is happening. The combination of a white hammer line on 3 min chart and prior/following price action has caught my attention, I was still in a short trade then, the T&S provided the setting for a reversal. I am not gunning for a lot of points on 1 trade, I need to source out 1-3 point moves and so far is seems to be working out OK.
OC........u answered the phone to avoid the pain of entering the trade...LOL ....i have found a few thousand excuses myself.......read mark douglas book "trading in the zone" .........tells you and me what we are doing and why.........
mind bias/anticipation is bad stuff.......i did that for years.......now I take it one bar at a time....enter with an edge, greater edge the better, then protect my money.......if you protect it u should make more ...but if you can't accept losing you can't make money in this business...............nobody knows what the next bar brings, how could we know what the day brings.........? can't happen........that is why huge numbers lose and never make it......they depend on their guessing when actually it is pure hoping...i hope it goes my way so i can make money, or be correct, or not lose, make me look smart, and a few other wrong reasons that can't consistently make money........trade a strategy that gives u the edge.............exit the trade with a strategy.........
riskarb, porgie is on your side......i hope u make millions in this business........i act silly too much and irritate many.........i am just too immature for a 62 year old........will work on it.......thanks
Here is the chart--It will be a little disjointed due to the fact that I point entries out on both the price(top) and RSI (bottom). I also placed lines on the divergences as I saw them. Reminder here: all exits are actually entries(reversals) from the previous direction. No stops shown here--not looking at that aspect just yet.
There is an item worth mentioning here concerning my longer term trading. The fact that the S&P is one of the least trendy markets out there , lends itself so well to my "income producing" naked premium. Even in up markets, it's just very hard to get hurt with out of the money short calls. I add to them at higher levels in increasing numbers if they come near their strikes. As you know, right now I am short the June 1350's.
I would like to mention that for me RSI is a not such a reliable indicator on time frames below 15 minutes, actually I have seen little point in using it on 15 minute chart and will switch it to 30 and 60 minutes. A trend takes a relatively long time to be established (~45+ min), within that time frame due to price oscillations RSI fails to deliver a true representation of what's really happening. If I was to base my short term trades on 5,8,10,15,20 min RSI I don't think small stops would create a sufficient enough cushion. BUT, I hope you prove me wrong
@romik, welldone, but i would like to ask you about your positionsizing. As far as i can see you add up size to the next trade after a loser, what would you have done if your 15 lots were losers too? Next trade 20 lots? And what are your rules about positionsize at all? In all tested daily systems of mine i adjust size to marketvolatility, means a high volatility is a high chance but at first a high risk too, so cause the preferation of constant risk the size is lower in high vola and higher in low vola, leads to a much better and more steady equitycurve. By adding size after losers you are doing a martingale thing, it`s not a big difference to adding to losers in an open position. You have a higher probability of getting this trade or day close positive, the deeper your pockets, the more you can add size, the higher the probability of success. You may be very convinced about your tradingskills, but never unterestimate the factor random and bad luck. In testing systems martingale positionsizing is not doing very well, the normaly used is the different, antimartingale, reducing size after losing, that`s also the principle with fixed fractional positionsizing, trade higher size with increasing account, trade lower size with decreasing account. If (i don`t know, make it clear...) you use martingale to excess, you are one day in very big trouble, the stopsize thing is quite a marginal issue against a heavy martingale strategy. The wrong betsize can kill accounts too, very fast. I know of a YM trader always adding to losers in daytrading, i saw him doubling up every ~30 points in heavy trends, in all observed situations he came out at least breakeven, but I would not like to do the same(and i have not the accountsize to do so...). Adding size after losing trades is not different, may be not so visuable on the first look...Can work for years, but the one ugly hit kills your account in one day. Definition: Originally, martingale referred to a class of betting strategies popular in 18th century France. The simplest of these strategies was designed for a game in which the gambler wins his stake if a coin comes up heads and loses it if the coin comes up tails. The strategy had the gambler double his bet after every loss, so that the first win would recover all previous losses plus win a profit equal to the original stake. Since a gambler with infinite wealth is guaranteed to eventually flip heads, the martingale betting strategy was seen as a sure thing by those who practiced it. Unfortunately, none of these practitioners in fact possessed infinite wealth, and the exponential growth of the bets would quickly bankrupt those foolish enough to use the martingale after even a moderately long run of bad luck.