I have a strategy in which I scale into positions. Let's assume I am talking about a long position. I will not add to my position unless it has gone against me (I know..some people do not agree with this, but that is another topic). At each level, I invest the exact same amount of $. I have statistics that evaluate every trade made. In this example (Oct 2005-present)... When entering a trade for the first time (POINT A), I have made: Total of $78720 Average Trade = $360 Median Trade = $140 WINS = 130 LOSSES = 83 BREAKEVEN = 5 WIN % = 61% When averaging down my position and adding (POINT B), I have made: Total of $50320 Average Trade = $430 Median Trade = $280 WINS = 84 LOSSES = 33 BREAKEVEN = 0 WIN % = 72% POINT C Total of $29600 Average Trade = $640 Median Trade = $310 WINS = 32 LOSSES = 13 BREAKEVEN = 1 WIN % = 71% What I am trying to figure out is...if I should completely eliminate POINT A, and reduce all the exposure I get at that level (with the 213 trades)...and just invest 1.5x as much at POINT B and POINT C. I understand I will miss out on the trades that never get to POINT B, but not sure how to handle it. I am not a statistics guy, so I am drawing a blank on how to evaluate this situation...so I would really love input/questions from others out there with an opinion. Thanks in advance.