Taking a cue from the profit taking strategy, I'd like to discuss the optimal position sizing. All of the Dr. Elder books emphasize that position sizing is a much overlooked, but incredibly important part of a daytrader's overall strategy. It also seems that putting more than 2% of your equity at risk is guaranteed disaster from which no daytrader can recover from. Now my question is, not only what your particular position sizing strategy is, but what you guys think of an "all or nothing" position? Now, before everyone jumps in, the profit taking thread got me to thinking. If the "all or nothing" profit taking method is the one that gets you most profits, what about an "all or nothing" position? But when taking this position, you maintain a HARD stop at most 2% risk? Really, there is nothing different from taking four $25K stock positions with a 2% risk tolerance and taking one $100K stock position with a 2% risk tolerance, right? But your ability to take in profits would be greatly increased. Instead of being overly diversified, you have a concentrated position that allows you to gain the most profits. And if a trade goes against you, you are either automatically stopped out or you go out on your own. But either way you would maintain disciplined stop management. It seems to me that the most profitable daytraders aren't the ones that win 100% of the time, but rather like 50-65% and whose losses are minimal compared to the larger wins. So what do you guys think? Would a diversified position strategy be more beneficial in your opinion? or do you think an all or nothing position, with disciplined stops, could still get you the necessary 50/50 win probability but with huge profits compared to smaller losses? Pros? cons? risks? rewards?