I read a comment on here recently where someone was arguing that "strong hands" don't trade algorithmically. The comment was made in the context of directional trading, so I'll keep my discussion limited to that realm, although there is probably a whole other realm of non-directional, counter-directional, portfolios of strategies, etc., discussion that could be had about "strong hands". Also, let's assume that the "strong hand" in question is a trader, not a long-term investor like a pension fund or something of that nature, otherwise we'll just end up agreeing that there are institutions that can hold through vicious drawdowns, which is true, but doesn't say anything about trading. Anyway, this argument got me thinking. First, is there such a thing as a "strong hand" and, if so, why wouldn't they trade algorithmically? The more I thought about it, the more I actually think they would trade algorithmically because the essence of an algorithm is to apply a structured decision-making process using all available current information. So, in a structured decision-making entry process, there is ONE rational way to decide direction, ONE rational way to set the entry trigger, ONE rational price for entry on the timeframe you are trading, ONE rational place for your initial stop, ONE rational place to move your initial stop to a new stop, ONE way to move your stop on an ongoing basis and ONE way to exit. To think otherwise is to dwell in the realm of ambiguity and subjectivity, which is counter to the whole "strong hand" mentality, which is based, at least partially, on the exploitation of those characteristics in others. So, is this wrong? I actually think this is correct and it seems to be a reasonable approximation of how someone who never got "shaken out" before a position reached its maximum potential on the relevant timeframe (which is what is always said happens to "weak hands") and who was reasonably discerning in picking direction through a series of logical deductions based on objective factors would trade. Essentially, the way a "human robot" would trade. If anyone responds, let's leave aside position-sizing considerations for the moment, since I agree that a "strong hand", if such an entity exists, would likely be sizable and hence face liquidity issues taking a full position at ONE price and exiting at ONE price. Granted. But, I would also assume that a "strong hand" would be able to find sufficiently correlated or non-correlated markets to diversify into, using the same algorithm provided the same signal was being given, so essentially the entire universe of tradeable assets would be the "strong hand's" domain. Also, let's keep the discussion away from conspiracy theories about "strong hands", blah, blah, blah. I'm talking about positions taken in the largest markets on the planet (indices, currencies, oil, etc.), not some penny stock that's manipulated a dozen different ways.