disagree...uncle point...depends on volatility and on alot of different considerations as you mentioned earlier... this question is loaded to begin with
true the phrase "uncle point" implies you are in a wrestling match with the market and forced to the point of surrender, instead of objectively expecting a percentage of trades to be losses as a simple matter of course in line w/ odds and probability over time p.s. over the course of a normal trading day losses should incur no real "pain" at all, unless you broke the rules, got excessively hammered or otherwise screwed up
Right off the bat Including Commish I'm 200 to $400 in the hole just initiating the trade. So What Uncle Point? If I "scratch", I end up negative on the trade. If I'm sloppy getting out slippage costs me $500-$1K yes, I use a discount broker and oh yeah size does matter
You've gotta be joking right! Keep the "trading part" of your capital constant? Then what am I trading for? The income?? Hmm..I just realised...maybe *I* am wrong about this....do traders out there actually do this? I thought we all wanted to grow our accounts...so the same trades will yield greater "dollar" totals. (Up to a certain point, based on trading style). Surely I can't be alone thinking this (2 minutes ago I thought I was part of the vast majority)... Myabe this deserves a poll....who wants to compound their returns..and who trades for an income? Daniel
I agree w/ ya Daniel and pretty much said as much in this same thread a few posts back. I see no reason to stop growing the total funds traded until I get up near the size cap for my strategy, which is a ways away yet. In terms of income versus growth I split 'em down the middle by withdrawing 50% of profits once a quarter and letting the other half ride.