Taking this truth to the extreme, a trader should not only enter and exit with full position, but full position should be maximum size a.k.a."all-in"... then out performance against other strategies AND maximum profit for the strategy being traded could be attained. 11 year running discussion, pretty damn funny.
That's a poor example to be referencing, he doesnt know what the hell he's talking about. Scaling in and out is a different level altogether, focus on getting 1+1 = 2 right first before moving to algebra.
50 % winning percentage 4 ES Contracts 20 trades 2 pt target 2 pt loss 1st example without scaling out 10 winners 2X(4 Contracts) = $80 pts ($4000) 10 losers 2X(4Contracts) = $80 pts (-$4000) Net profit 0 before commissions 2nd example with scaling out half at 1 pt 5 winners 2X(4 Contracts) =40 pts ($2000) 5 winners 1X(4 Contracts) =20 pts($1000) 10 losers 2X(4 Contracts) = -80 pts (-$4000) Net loss before commissions=-$1000
Certainly. But the math will still show that scaling is inferior no matter what the strategy is. All in all out will outperform scaling over the long haul on every strategy.
Not if win rate is very low, as your losses will eat up all eventual profit, whereas scaling out will be in profit as win rate will be much higher due to banking part of position early on.
NO--Win rate would be just as high for the all in out trader exiting at the point that the scale got out.
You're not understanding. All in trader can't do what scale out trader can. Two different strategies at times.