Hey I can see I am wasting my time, what was I thinking, these pros here on ET know what their doing, they have stone cold discipline, and have know emotions, and certainly know egos.
Well why don't you explain why there is a difference. If I am going long on a stock and I decide that I am willing to risk 2.00 per share downside before I will get out, how is it different than me going short on a stock risking 2.00 per share upside?
Going short is less favorable due to a reverse compounding effect. As the position moves in your favor, the capitalization of your position decreases, making it harder and harder to generate each unit of return. The opposite is true when going long.
Consider taking a $10k position from the long side versus the short side, with $2k profit milestones. LONG: $10k -> $12k = 20% $12k -> $14k = 17% SHORT: $10k -> $8k = 20% $8k -> $6k = 25% So how is this funny?
Mini - I am sure we could find many of pro's that have blown up accounts going long as well. I don't see the reasoning here. It's like another poster said - if you are willing to risk 2 points on a long, why not risk 2 points on a short as well? The amount of being risked is IDENTICAL.