Taking 410K to 4million by Year End 2010

You threw me a curveball here. Can you please explain what "pegged" and "iceberg" orders are?

thanks.

 

it takes small pieces off at a time quickly so you dont show your "hand" aka size.

 

http://institutions.interactivebrokers.com/en/p.php?f=orderTypes&ib_entity=llc

 

Weekly Update for week 5/50 ended 02/13/2010

Negative week, down 19K (6.2%). Gave back what I collected last week.

There is no shocking loss, except being stopped out at my max loss of 6K on an ERTS trade on Tues - entry was based on wrong information. The rest was a woeful collection of stops on my automated system on Monday: System entered a rash of trades only to be stopped out of every one of them. I am tightening the rules on that system to avoid so many entries at once.

Looking forward to better times.

Code:

Opening Balance:               	    	306,077
Net loss for the week 		         19,125
------------------------------------------------
Net Balance:                   		286,952

Number of Trades	            	 18
Number of Profitable Trades    	    	  6


Since Inception of Thread   01/10/2010 - 02/13/2010

Opening Balance:                   	410,000
Net loss(Less Margin Interest)		123,048 (Down 30%)
------------------------------------------------
Net Balance				286,952

Number of Trades	           	283
Number of Profitable Trades        	134

Top/Bottom Discretionary Trades for the week

TICKER			ENTRY DATE/TIME		EXIT DATE/TIME		QTY	PURCHASE AMT	SOLD AMT	GAIN/LOSS	TYPE
	
BPJFEB202010490.0PUT	2010-02-12-10-14-07	2010-02-12-10-50-08	2000	21000		25000		3960		BIDU PUT
-------------------------------------------------
MMMFEB20201080.0PUT	2010-02-11-11-27-33	2010-02-11-15-58-40	15000	21750		16800		-5159		MMM PUT
ERTS			2010-02-09-09-34-39	2010-02-09-11-15-46	15000	241828		235803		-6050		LONG

								

 

i wouldn't worry, that just sounds like a standard/average losing week.

 

I see a double bottom forming / inverse hns

 

ouch!

 

Good stuff sticking to discipline!

Have a nice WE

 

I appreciate the analysis, Neke, but...well, you knew I'd say, "But."

...


If you really wanted to "tighten the rules", how about a cursory analysis of which sectors you are watching. Reducing your watchlist to stocks you know is better than modifying the variables themselves. Try to Focus on more specific stocks. I'm positive you just have a randomly large watchlist of more than 200 symbols that is more the cause of random black swans than blacks swans are the cause of anybody's catastrophic loss.

Anyway, I would start by analyzing the watchlist, which appears quite random to me.

 

Good job sticking to the rules Neke, but for that it could have been much worse.

You've done well in the past and will do so again in future.