If I get on on a weak hand shake out then I use tight stops and size up then. I usually have to have a resting limit order for this ahead of time though. In the situations where I'm not setup already, I don't have the best read at the time but the read becomes better, or there's still a bit of play in the trade that's when I add with an additional 25-50% more risk or so. If the trade looks iffy I won't add. Sometimes one just gets in shitty trades and those are the ones to avoid adding anymore size (let alone entering in the first place but shit happens).
This method of position management has pros and cons, like most concepts. For instance, dead wrong from the start, means u take a loss on all your positions if you were "tricked" as you added. And of course, the obvious one, right from the start means your winner leaves with its smallest size.
There's always a chance to add to the winner just like usual. If I'm dead wrong from the start I'd rather take a loss on 50-75% of the full size than 100%. We cannot be right all the time, and I feel it's a reasonable compromise. More often than not, things don't just take off.
So if you came upon a method of trading which doubled your money 95% of the time and lost all of it 5% of the time, you'd reject using it because the possibility of total loss would exceed your stop loss. (LOL) Hey, the beauty of trading is that there are thousands of different ways of making money. (And millions of ways of losing it.) For now, I'll follow Edward O. Thorp's money management method.
Uhhh, does anyone have a view on SHAK? Note the thread title... High level discussions of how to size trades, whether to average in, etc, might be interesting but should be happening elsewhere, rather than jacking Surf's thread.