just another thought: I trade a portfolio, so while I try to limit each positions loss to say $250 (depending on system), I will sometimes liquidate if the entire portfolio is up or down more than say 1% [some flexibility applied, depending on strength/weakness of the market on that particular day]
You say you risk the same on everytrade? Why? When you are in a losing streak you should cut back and when winning push the envelope. Right?
I do the same share size (for given price ranges), but I may bail my shares more quickly (in effect cutting losses quicker than I normally would)...
Not sure I understand the point of this poll. Dollar amount is meaningless without attaching it to account size. A guy with a five grand account is risking 10% on a $500 trade, whereas someone with 100K is risking 0.5% on that same trade. Big risk, itty bitty risk, same dollar amount. Unless you have a reference point of account size, there is no information here. So I am confused, unless your aim is to get a feel for the trading size of other posters? In that case, why not just ask the question directly?
I see your point... maybe I should have thought more carefully about all of this... I simply do the same share sizes for given price ranges and dont let it go against me a certain $ amount... but point taken, I cannot be compared with a guy trading a $25k account or a guy trading a $2million account... I suppose implicitly I was assuming we all had similar sized "trading" accounts (namely $50k - $75k "active" in 1-3 separate accounts, perhaps with profits withdrawn monthly from each account, keeping the "trading" part of our capital constant, since I take it that most of us won't need more than $50k per account to trade with), and was just attempting to get a feel for how many $ we on average let individual positions go against us...
I'd imagine short term traders would want to get their accounts as big as possible while staying within strategic size limits, because the lower your execution costs are relative to your size, the more bang for your buck on every shot and the easier it is to make it over the profit line. When you get big enough, a half cent per share improvement in relative execution costs can put a few extra K in your pocket each month. But if you guys are all doing a fixed X cents per share regardless of size w/ no ticket, then I guess this would be an irrelevant consideration. I for one don't see how so many traders ignore volatility. WAY more important than support and resistance (in my opinion).
Actually, I interpreted "uncle point" as the pain threshold...How far can you watch a position go against you before you puke it up...I think that stop size and uncle point kind of change over time
But wouldn't that imply that you do not have set risk points and reasonable loss expectation built into your methodology, in which case your career as a short term trader will have a short life span anyway