Tag Archives: #positionsizing

Miners

Posted on by
Reply

Hey.

We’re miners.

We mine for…

…margin of safety.

Surprised?

As in, can one mine for…

…something abstract?

Sure, no biggie.

Ok, bear with me on this.

Entry quantum = shovel.

Wedge it in deep enough = Good Till Traded (GTT) Order = Poise.

Emotional sell most likely on open or on close = mined material falling into basket.

GTT executed = margin of safety mined successfully.

All the time?

No. In times like this, specifically, when there’s blood on the streets.

Isn’t margin of safety already available in times like this?

Yes it is. However, we want to mine for extra on top of what is available.

Like your yesterday’s experience with the HDFC Bank GTT hit well below trigger, a couple of seconds after open?

Exactly like that. Oh, there’s another add on.

Tell me.

We buy with a lag.

Meaning?

Let’s say something’s fallen big, and has come on our radar owing to levels broken.

With you. Then?

We let it fall for the whole session, setting up GTT only after the session, and placing GTT around 4 to 5% below close. Time and price lag.

Isn’t that way below?

That’s the whole point. An emotional sell will hit, and then price will stabilize.

What if no hit?

Possible. Good with that. What’s also possible is, there could be no hit for two or three sessions, and then there might result a soft execution. We’ve still mined the extra margin of safety, even though it’s taken us a few more sessions.

What was your experience with the recent HDFC bank buy?

GTT was set up on 2nd March, for 809, when price was at 887.

Just fishing in the air or what?

Didn’t want it at 887. Wanted it at 809. That’s all there is to it.

So, 78 points were mined, that’s almost 8.8%, wow!

Hold on. There was so much emotion in play, that scrip opened at 770, a massive 72 points below previous close, order triggered at 773 a second or two later, and was executed at 778 after some more seconds. So that’s about 12.3% mined. It took 17 days and 13 trading sessions. By the way, the extra 12.3% mined goes a very long way.

Explain.

In 25 years, at 15% per annum compounded, it compounds to 4 times plus the entire sum that’s gone in just now.

Tremendous!

Welcome to the world of compounding, and that of…

… mining.

Specialization

Posted on by
Reply

Hey.

Calls have started coming in.

Am I doing ok?

Is the panic getting to me?

Am I going under?

I was waiting for this.

Calls of this nature, coming in, are a fantastic guage for the onset of panic.

You see…

…I specialize in guaging panic. You could call me a fall-specialist. A crash is my field of action.

During the crash in CoViD wave 1, I categorized two levels of panic.

Level I was classified as middling panic and identified at the point when calls were coming in asking if people should cancel their systematic investment plans. Aversion to invest with blood beginning to flow on the streets. Noted.

Level II was classified as grave panic, and identified at the point when calls were coming in of the nature, that now that all companies would be bankrupt, why was I still putting in money, into the markets? Questioning the whole financial system. Noted too.

In current scenario, questions about my health followed by queries about which stocks to invest into, after I had answered with a ‘never been better’ reply, for me, corresponds to level I of panic, identified.

Am still waiting for those other calls, asking why I’m putting in money when everything was going bankrupt anyway. Probably coming soon.

So, what’s the course of action, now that level I prevails.

We take it up a notch.

Meaning?

Look harder for entries.

Weren’t you already entering?

Yes, but wasn’t trying very much. Was letting the market punch me hard into an entry.

Meaning?

I’ll give you an example to drive this point home.

Ok.

HDFC Bank, right?

Right.

I had a GTT on for the last many sessions for entry at 809. Wasn’t coming. GTT remained. Either the market socked me into this position, or I wasn’t entering. Happened this morning. Triggered during open, at 773, executed at 778. Market pushed me into the position with force. I let it.

And now?

Will leave myself open to a lesser force push. Will put nearer GTTs, let’s say ~3% away.

If such prices don’t come?

Then not interested in entries.

What happens at level II of panic?

Even lesser force required to enter. Only GTTs lesser than 1 to 2% away perhaps. Many entries.

How come you are so liquid?

This approach creates liquidity during good times. Entering with small quanta now, as compared to networth. Can go on buying for more than one year from this point, if required. Such is the strategy.

Good to know, thanks for sharing.

Mind you, buying during panic does take a toll on one’s psyche. One needs to recuperate and regenerate. It’s not as easy as it sounds. I try very hard though, to recover mentally before the next session. Wish to last very long in the markets, …

…successfully.

Cared to Rewire?

Posted on by
Reply

Hey.

From this point onwards…

…it all boils down to…

…stamina.

Theories for market success have been out there, in abundance, since eternity.

Everybody can read how the richest man in Babylon…

…got rich.

Or how compounding works.

Position-sizing.

Entry quantum.

Margin of safety.

Profit run.

Multibaggers.

Engines of income generation.

Entry into the territory of wealth.

Generational wealth-creation. Etc.

Yes. Everybody can read. Or listen. Or both.

Question is…

…how many can follow through?

Of those who set out, how many can remain grounded and focused when the heat is turned up, like now?

Most importantly, how many can finish?

I would estimate that a low single digit percentage walks the talk to successful culmination.

Why?

You see, heat does something critical.

Once it is turned up, it burns out all nervous systems that haven’t been rewired.

Given that we are not born with nervous systems programmed towards market success, we need to rewire them over the years and over the knocks. Once fully rewired, our nervous systems can withstand, pivot, and generate wealth over prolonged strife.

As this crisis continues, more and more players will start to cave in.

Capitulation at lows.

Others will stop all activity owing to fear, but might not sell. They’ve frozen. Better than capitulation.

There will be some who cash out with the intent of getting in lower, cannot then find the courage when the lows come, and then join their frozen compatriots as the reversal arrives and accelerates.

Still others, with funds safely picked away in fixed deposits, will be afraid to bring them over to Equity. Fine. They are behaving as per their risk-pr0file. At least they are in control of their behaviour.

Rewired market entities will be acting. They know what to buy. Markets give ample time to study, and all kinds of preparation will have been done, like, yesterday. These folks will have started buying upon the arrival of their levels. Clockwork. Small entry quanta. Position-sized as per their risk profile. Programmed to keep entering for a long period. That’s how they will have positioned themselves and their liquidities. These entities will show stamina and will outlast everyone to still be buying at market bottoms and slightly beyond. They will emerge with the lowest buying averages, and will make the quickest multiples upon reversal, after which some will pull their principles out, while others will ride their holdings to multibaggers.

Who do you want to be?

It’s ok if you don’t identify with any of these categories. Find your passion elsewhere.

Or, self-PhD to a rewired market mindframe, sooner than later. Preferably – now. This crisis could even just be beginning. No one knows. Since no one also knows how long it will last, for all you know, you could still get a year or two’s great buying ahead.

Wishing you lucrative investing.

Constants

Posted on by
Reply

Waldermort…

…overplayed his hand.

Thought he had the nuts…

…and bet the farm.

Turns out…

…that the adversary’s hole cards…

…plus the flop, turn and river…

…are leading to a full house.

As opposed to Waldy’s…

…ordinary nut flush.

Waldy is oversmart and a half.

Backfires at times.

This one has backfired at the worst possible time.

Only one result.

Waldy loses…

…everything.

Reserve status.

Serious player status.

Reputation, if there was any.

Loyalty, which was abundant from former allies, but is now…

…not even zero, but minus.

What more can one lose?

Whatever one can. It’s lost.

When this is over, a new methodology of doing everything business and financial will have emerged.

Meanwhile, a few constants remain.

There are areas in the world, where there is growth.

And will be, for the next 25 years.

Like India.

Semblance of stability?

Yes.

Integrity?

Yes.

Win-win attitude?

Yes.

Loyalty?

Yes.

Balance?

Yes.

Clout?

Yes.

Consumption.

Yes.

Period.

Buy India during this fall.

As long as the fall lasts. One year. Two years. Three years. No one knows.

What one also doesn’t know is whether India will give this buying opportunity again.

So, buy India.

Even if it means that you get fully invested during current fall.

That’ll be just great.

Magic

Posted on by
Reply

Sure, …

… nobody said this was a bottom already.

No signs of a bottom.

For all you know, the real correction just started.

So, everyone is asking, …

… why in the world a buyer is buying …

… now.

Confused? No need to be.

First up, please understand, that money enters the market in a planned fashion when position sizing rules are in place.

Oh, there’s one more safety rule.

In a day, only so much goes in, in total.

Let’s say what you are referring to as a bottom comes within, hmm, two days, one day, four hours, one hour… ,

… whenever it comes.

Do you actually believe and / or have the guts to get fully invested in that minuscule time-frame?

Let me answer that for you. NO.

Why am I so clear on this?

Moving big money in one shot when the whole world’s pajamas are falling, and watching it possibly become half in a few days will most likely lead to neurosis and / or psychosis.

It is mentally digestible to keep buying at levels as per the entry quantum allowed by one’s position-sizing algorithm.

Though the overall market or index or sector benchmark might not be signalling a bottom, individual stocks hover around correction levels, threatening to recover from there.

We let them hover.

If they are not declining further from a correction level after a bit, we pick up one lot.

What’s the lot?

It’s a function of one’s networth at that point.

What function?

You decide. Yes. Your decide your own position size at each point thus, as per a mathematical calculation. You can decide to programme this function, for example, in a manner that you go in more when you are winning and go in less when you are losing. Or vice-versa. As per your personality and risk-profile. You call the shots. You are the master of your money and journey.

As time goes by, and as the correction deepens, you have lots of lots in. Ideally, you get fully invested before recovery. Compared with trying to move in fully at the exact bottom, well you might get lucky with the latter option, but it will burn your nerves, and resulting psychosis can last longer than when rational decisions will need to be taken. Not worth it. Position-size, entry quantum, going in bit by bit – this is what our nervous system can handle well without getting damaged. Markets change within months, perhaps weeks, and…

… when the magic happens, you deploy your exit strategy, whatever that is. Be rationally around to do so.

Or, simply, don’t do anything except watching the magic, …

… of a low buying average develop into a multiple.

Soil-Conditions

Posted on by
Reply

Hey.

The king wears…

…no clothes, …

…and doesn’t have an idea…

…as to what the adversary is wearing.

The latter, however, is aware of the former’s wardrobe malfunction.

Maniac versus potential fanatics, which is capable of a rational reaction?

Neither?

Probably.

It might seem though, perhaps correctly, that the former is exhibiting fanaticism.

Everything is a lie.

Over-reaction : huge.

Underlying cause : none visible, yet. Actually, adversary will now scramble to create underlying cause, even if it didn’t exist. Its leader is eliminated. One can’t expect reasonable reactions from a nation now one in anger. Anger as in, how dare you? Our guy might have been a demon, but who the hell are you to eliminate him and incite us to take over our own land. We might or might not want that, but WHO THE HELL ARE YOU? WHO ASKED YOU?

Status : the hornet’s nest has been disturbed. Deed is done. This blunder might well undo the king, unless he has planned to print his way through, which then will accelerate undoing his economy, which in turn will also undo the king. All arrows are promoting towards king – exiting stage – soon.

In this turmoil, world pays tax. Oil shock is upon us.

If one was in the adversary’s boots, one would have also sealed off Hormuz. What’s the surprise? Meaning, if one is surprised, where were your think tanks? Are they low IQ? Stupid? Non-existent? Probably a mix of all three, if that is possible. I’ll tell you why there is surprise. One grossly underestimated the adversary, who was in a state of preparedness to be able to seal off Hormuz in less than ten hours. That’s why there is surprise. Wars are won and lost because of the element of surprise.

Meanwhile, oil shock means mostly all components of the stock markets go down. Fall gains momentum. As value buyers, we are on high alert.

One is not rejoicing about what’s happening. War is terrible. Brings destruction to all involved. Acknowledged.

What’s happening is a stone cold implementation of entry strategy.

Staggered.

With small quanta. [Each quantum a function of one’s networth at that moment. Algorithm of that function to be decided by oneself.]

Wherever and whenever value is seen.

For as long as it’s seen, …

…or till liquidity gets exhausted.

When one enters at deep value, one has already made money.

It’s just that the world will stamp its approval during times of euphoria, which is when the money will show, as in the sapling having grown into a plant, or a tree.

That’s fine with us.

We absolutely ok with just keeping on planting sapling after sapling in the right soil conditions.

Take a Bow!

Posted on by
Reply

Hey.

So, what’s our model?

It’s not sector based.

First I thought it was.

I now realize it’s not.

Well, to be honest, our model has various facets.

One of these is on, currently.

Value? Buy. Deep value? Buy.

Objective? Make a multiple fast. Pull principle out. Leave profit in the market for compounding.

Sector?

Doesn’t matter.

Moving on to next facet.

Ok. In range bound markets, what do we do?

No value buying, of course.

Ideally nothing.

However, action does get the better of us, at times, ya, ya, we are all human, and have that video game need. So, in range-bound markets, we do buy, at times, with the objective of making a small profit, slowly. When the profit objective is achieved, principal is pulled out and the profit is left in the market to compound if not required otherwise.

Right. Next facet.

What happens for us in a market that breaks out?

Two things.

First up, we are looking to make a quick let’s say 25%, and then getting principal out. Profit stays in the market to compound, irrespective of the level, ya we have the guts, since that which stays in the market enjoys 100% margin of safety. Secondly, some of the deep value still in the market has made a mega multitude by then, and we can take a call about it. We might or might not liquidate a fraction, depending upon our 2 to 3 year liquidity needs.

Moving on.

What happens to the stuff that gets stuck?

If our world is not falling apart because of that something that’s stuck, that something is and remains for us just another position. Downside is the position going down to zero. Upside is unlimited. We stay or cut, depending on our per saldo existence and / or situation in the world.

Stuff will get stuck. This is the markets baby, not a vacation in Hawaii. [Thought to self – let’s make activity in the markets like a vacation in Hawaii. Hands off, no engagement during market hours, let’s do an Ed Seykota baby, adding a few leg-glances like only handling in GTTs, disengaging after Thursday analysis and market input (3:45 pm to 4:15pm), only to re-engage on Monday morning 8 am to 8:30 am, to punch in GTTs for Monday.]

Very long-term play allows us to work well with even hundred positions stuck, because a handful of lucrative positions will offset these and then some. Perhaps one will even be able to say ‘and then lots’.

Now comes the pointe. This is something I learnt from Dr. Van K. Tharp, God bless his soul. Position-sizing.

Our one entry quantum is a function of our networth.

Make it whatever function you are comfortable with, corresponding to your own networth.

As our networth increases, our one entry quantum increases in size. As our networth decreases, our one entry quantum decreases in size. When we are winning, we set ourselves up to win bigger. When we are losing, we set ourselves up to lose lesser.

Final question – answered here.

Ya, final frontier. We tackle this very maturely.

Why are you getting all this for free?

Free? Please remember, that nothing in life is for free. Not one breath. There always needs to be a karmic field to support an event. No field, no action, meaning this here wouldn’t be taking place.

I’ve taken freely from a lot of people. This is my giveback. Please take freely of this. Don’t feel any burden. All you need to do is to pay it forward, at some stage in your life, when you comfortably can. Help someone in need. Make our world a better place. If perhaps you already are doing so – take a bow!

🙂

How to?

Posted on by
Reply

How does one…

…position oneself…

…for what’s coming?

What’s coming?

Yeah.

Meaning the turbulence ahead?

What else. First up, we’re taking turbulence to be the norm, from this point onwards.

All right. Turbulence = norm. Baseline set.

Then, how do we maximally exploit our understanding, …

…simultaneously creating income…

…but then also allowing wealth to accumulate and compound?

Yeah, how do we?

You tell me.

We need to start with an asset class.

Right.

Which asset class?

Again, you tell me.

What we’re comfortable with.

Yes. Beautiful. And then we weaponize the asset class chosen, the one we’re comfortable with.

Weaponize?

Yeah. Otherwise it will be no good for these times. We need to make it time-befitting.

Example?

Let’s say you choose gold, ok? What good are your efforts in gold if after a point governments nationalize it and then confiscate it, paying you a reasonable price at that moment, and then, from that point onwards, in the hands of enough governments, gold turns a 100-bagger, for them, not for you?

Yeah, what good are my efforts in gold then?

No good. You need to trade gold, use some profits as income, and another portion of profits you invest in other asset classes, bought cheap, which the government has issues regulating harshly.

Like? Crypto?

Some think so. That’s their weapon of choice. Personally, I have problems with storing my entire networth on a pen-drive. That alone takes crypto off the table for me.

So where do you go?

Stocks. They come naturally to me.

Stocks can be harshly regulated.

In isolation, if we’re looking at stocks-stocks, yes, I’ll give you that. In a solid framework encapsulated within an income-generation cum wealth-creation mechanism operating with fundamental, evergreen principles like margin of safety, letting profits run, position-sizing and what have you, even stocks can be made to behave like the anti-fragile system they are a part of.

Would that not be valid for any asset classes, then?

Yes, provided the government can’t seize that asset class overnight from you.

Like cash?

True.

Gold?

True.

Silver?

Yeah.

Bonds?

Not sure. Risk of default though.

Real-estate?

Prices of real-estate follow demand and supply, and demand is reciprocally proportional to negative regulation. Governments can crash real-estate. So, yes.

Crypto?

I’m not so sure that crypto is beyond regulation. However, exchanges collapsing regularly are not my scene.

Stocks?

Have we heard of governments seizing stocks? As long as no illegal activity, all debts paid off, clear ownership and succession, I don’t think the government can do that. So stocks of companies, for me, remain in the fray. On top of that, we encapsulate them into a system. The system has an edge. It’s multi-faceted. It generates income, approximately when required, in cash. Otherwise, it creates wealth through compounding. Throw in 20 -30 models like margin of safety, letting most profits run, position-sizing, fine-tuned Fibonacci, income dynamos, etc. etc., and what we’re looking at is a unique entity, which behaves differently when compared to fragile stocks, or even to robust stocks.

So what you’re trying to say is that it all depends how you handle each asset class is what makes that asset class either fragile, robust or anti-fragile.

Exactly.

Is that your word?

Which word?

Anti-fragile.

No. It belongs to Mr. Taleb. In whatever way a word or a concept can belong to a person…

Like governments can crash real-estate, they can also crash stocks. What do you say to that?

Oh, that’s an anti-fragile part of this system, which leaves the user liquid enough to benefit greatly from such crash, seen from a 15 month perspective. User of such system is positioned to take huge advantage of temporary and large price dips. Stocks have a very low ticket size as compared to real-estate, and can be readily swooped up in a crash in bulk, unlike real-estate, which is heavy and is a huge liquidity-enemy.

Where do you stand with your system, personally?

As a whole, I’m working towards making my system with stocks, income-generation and wealth-compounding as antifragile as I possibly can.

What’s the critical mass, above which the system can be considered safe for the new world order?

I’m not sure. It’s all experimental.

So how will you know?

If I make the transition to the new world order whilst preserving a large portion of my portfolio, I’ll know that I’ve succeeded.

Any other method apart from the make or break one suggested by you?

No. Everything else is theory. Surviving reasonably well and then thriving is the only practical method that counts for me.

Thanks.

🙂

Nath on Trading – II – Building up on Basics

Posted on by
Reply

21). You started small, right?

22). Ultimately, you’re staying consistently in the green, correct?

23). Then it’s time to scale up. Slowly does it.

24). Why the whole spiel about starting small? You make your biggest mistakes in the first seven years.

25). Hopefully, you don’t repeat a mistake once it has happened, and once you’ve learnt from it.

26). However, mistakes are good, because they teach you. Nothing else can teach you with incorporation into DNA. Mistakes can.

27). No university can teach you. No books. No professor. Play the market, make the mistake, and learn.

28). A big break early in the markets is a recipe for disaster. More likely than not, you’ll blow up later, when it matters.

29). The best possible way to scale up is using position-sizing as delineated by Dr. Van Tharp.

30). The good thing about position-sizing is that it makes you scale down, when trading corpus goes below par.

31). Day trading takes up the day. You’re exhausted and are not able to do much else.

32). Short-term trading also keeps you riveted to the terminal, mostly.

33). However, position trading and longer time frames keep you in the line for whatever else you wish to achieve.

34). Market TV makes it a video game. Switch it off.

35). Trading with targets caps big-win potential.

36). When you trade, you trade. You don’t invest.

37). Successful trading means buying high and selling higher, or…

38). …selling low and buying back lower…

39). …as opposed to successful investing, which is buying low, not selling for the longest time, and then selling for a multiple.

40). Read points 16 to 19 again.

A Little Bit of Manual is a Good Thing

Posted on by
Reply

Sure.

Auto is the motto.

Keep some pivotal stuff on manual, though.

It’ll give you something to do.

Because it’s pivotal stuff, it decides direction, or quantum, or what have you.

Position-sizing is ideally done on auto.

You can write an algorithm for it too.

Yeah.

You can take auto to the nth level and then some.

Keeping position-sizing on manual, though, for example, makes you remain in touch with portfolio expansion or contraction. Central.

In my opinion, setting risk:reward is a trade to trade thing, and depends upon the underlying chart. Hence, being manual here gives more dexterity.

Same goes for setting stop-losses.

Which auto strategy to look at, when, is by default a manual thing. It should be, anyways, in my opinion.

This adds spontaneity to life.

Spontaneity has a certain freshness to it which makes work fun.

Some strategies are better off when not looked at for days.

Manual helps here.

When an auto strategy stops working, one needs to manually fit it to work again.

If the strategy needs dumping, you’ll need to see to this yourself.

Creation of a new strategy – you got it – manual.

The manual stuff keeps you moving, and fit.

The auto stuff just goes on auto, and if that’s all there is for you, you’re going to start getting lazy.

Befriend manual, but don’t become a slave to manual.

A little bit of manual is a good thing.

Useless vs Useful Expansion

Posted on by
Reply

I’m guilty of useless expansion. 

I end up doing it all the time. 

Can’t help myself, you see.

I like to keep exploring new stuff in the market. 

The silver lining is, the even though I might be expanding sideways, there are two good things happening also. 

There is no scaling up happening immediately. Good. 

There is also a lot of discarding going on. Things that don’t work out are eventually abandoned. Great. 

My issue is that I might have between 1 to 2 useless strategies in my repertoire at any given time. 

These strategies are not working. In fact they are dying out. Reasons can be many. A strategy might be sound, but it might not be a fit. 

For a strategy to work for you, it must be practically lucrative in the long run, and it must fit you. 

By the time I realize that a strategy needs to be discarded, money has been lost. Tuition fees? Yes. 

Ultimately, things boil down to a handful of successful strategies. It can even ultimately boil down to one or two successful ones.

Get there. I’m trying too. To do so, useless strategies will need to be discarded, like, now. 

The problem is, you don’t know that a strategy is useless till it has hit you a few times. 

Also, you don’t wish to discard something that you think might just work out for you in the long run. 

Fine. Keep grinding, and ultimately narrow down your sideways expansion, till you’re only working with strategies that are yielding, and show a long-term promise of being around. 

Right. 

You’re there. 

Now you can scale up. Doing so using a yielding strategy that fits is called useful expansion. 

Scale up slowly. 

You can position-size, and scale up using profits. This way you are not putting in extra principal. Let the strategy continue to prove itself by yielding. As long as it does so, you keep scaling up on your positions using the newly earned profits. 

Why is useful expansion not easy to maintain?

We get carried away.

We might scale up too fast, and then baulk at a loss when the size of the loss is too difficult to swallow. Large input can result in a largish potential loss.

Trading is about containing loss, and letting profits run. 

Scaling up too fast makes an early loss look big if we haven’t tasted the corresponding potential profits yet. Such an event can even cause us to abandon a successful strategy because we are disheartened. 

Therefore, try not to scale up by putting in new principal, if you can help it. 

Try scaling up on profits alone.

Position-sizing automatically controls the scale-up-scale-down factors by defining the size of a constant stop as a percentage of the principal remaining between trades.

Position-sizing makes one scale-up and scale-down on auto-pilot in a relatively balanced fashion.

Please incorporate this wonderful ideology (which comes from the stable of Dr. Van Tharp) into your trading strategy. 

🙂

Did you invite the f-word?

Posted on by
Reply
The next trade… 
… yeah… 
… take it. 
What? 
Can’t? 
Why?  
Afraid of what might happen. 
That’s the whole thing. 
You see a setup – you trade the setup.
When you see a setup, there are no more what-ifs, supposings or anything. Then, it’s just you and the trade. Take the trade. 
No room for f-(ear). It’s the new f-word.  
How do you drive fear out of the equation? 
Risk a miniscule fraction of your networth per trade. 
Don’t make trading your bread and butter. Make it your bonus. 
Don’t allow anyone else’s negativity to creep in. Don’t talk to people. Trade on your own. No room for tips. 
Don’t listen to your broker. Tell him what to do.
Don’t trade under compulsion. 
Enjoy your trading. 
Once in the trade, lose the mini-bias that got you in. Now, just manage the trade. 
Stop hit? You’re out. 
Run? 
Raise stop. 
Running? 
Keep raising stop. 
Losing some of your notional profits? Market throws you out?
Good. That’s a proper exit. 
See, fear wasn’t allowed to the party. 
Look for next setup. 
Position-size your entry. 
Take the next trade. 
And so on and so forth. 
Not upto trading?
Ok. Don’t trade. Till you’re up to it.
 
Demons out of the way? 
 
Up to trading again? 
 
See the next setup?
 
Take it.

Winning Marketplay, Anyone?

Posted on by
Reply

Two words. 

Psychology.

Strategy. 

That’s it. 

Prediction?

No. 

Prediction is not pivotal here. 

We’re getting psychology and strategy right. 

We want winning marketplay, right?

Prediction is for losing marketplay. Prediction might be wrong. That’s when strategy and psychology save you from big loss. A big loss can wipe you out. Thus, dependence upon sheer prediction brings a wipe-out into play. That’s why, prediction is almost always relegated to the bottom rank when one talks about winning marketplay.

We’ll travel with a hint of prediction, though. Just a hint. Doesn’t suffice for losing yet. 

For entry purposes. Only.

Even this hint of prediction is bias-giving, though. Once we enter, we need to quickly lose the bias. Yeah, once we enter, we only react to what we see. 

Our system has an edge. It helps us choose market direction. After that, psychology and strategy take over. 

Meaning, after we’ve entered, there’s no more prediction in play. 

So what’s in play then?

The raw trade. 

And you.

At this point, all your mental strength comes into play. 

Oh, and your strategy. 

You do have a strategy, right?

As in, if x happens, they y, and if a happens then b.

You need a stoploss too.

You don’t have to show it. It can be mental, provided you don’t fool yourself into not using it when the time comes.

You won’t execute your stop. 

Sure. 

Again and again. 

Till you teach yourself how to. 

Till you lose big. And are still left standing. To want to enter again. 

Learning to take a small hit, again and again and again – that’s winning marketplay. Requires huge psychological strength. You acquire this. You don’t have to be born with it. 

Now comes another punchline. 

That profit-sapling just emerging…see it? You will not nip it in the bud. 

You’ll still do it. 

And again. 

You’ll nip it in the bud. 

Again and again. 

Till you teach yourself not to. 

It’s not easy. 

95%+ of all market players continue to nip profits in the bud all their lives. 

To allow the sapling to grow into a tree is the most difficult of all market lessons. Learning to let profits run is winning market play. 

To want more profits, you have to risk some of your current profits. 

No more risk, no more gain. 

You want to quickly exit and post that 22% gain on your Excel sheet. Sure. Why can’t you let it grow into an 82% gain? God alone knows. That’s how the cookie crumbles. You nip the opportunity to make that 82%. 

What’s with 82?

Just a random number. 

Am trying to get a point across. There’s a run happening. In a direction. It’s crossing +22%. Fast. Momentum could see it to +102%, to then backtrack and settle at +82%. It’s a probable scenario. 

Anyways, there are some smarties that risk 12 of the 22% and stay in the trade. Soon the 22 can even go beyond 82. Lets say it does. What do you do?

Nip?

No. 

Not yet. 

You let it travel. Momentum is to be allowed free leeway, till it halts. Let’s say it halts at 102. You say to yourself that the winds might change if 102 goes back to 82, and tell your broker to exit if 82 is hit intraday.

That and that alone is the proper way to exit a winning trade. You exit it with the taste of loss. You let the market throw you out. For all you know, the market might be in the mood for 152. You want to give the trade that chance. Thus, a momentum target exit while the move is still on would be less lucrative for you in the long run, or so I think. 

Why?

Statistics are defined by big wins. These matter. Big-time. Allow them to happen. Again and again and again. 

Now add position-sizing into your strategy. The ideology of position-sizing has been discovered and fantastically developed by Dr. Van Tharp. 

In a nutshell, position-sizing means that an increasing trading corpus due to winning should result in an increasing level risked. Also, correspondingly, a decreasing trading corpus due to losing should result in a decreasing level risked.

With position-sizing added to your arsenal, no one will be able to hinder your progress.

Psychological strength that comes from experiencing first-hand and digesting learning from varied market scenarios, coupled with a stoploss/profitrun position-sizing strategy – that’s a winning combination.

Wishing you happy and lucrative trading!

🙂 

When are you doing it Right?

Posted on by
Reply

There’s something called the Line.

You feel it.

It’s abstract.

You have to be its master.

Then, you’re doing it right.

Controlled, the line won’t disturb your life.

It’ll very probably add to your life, in terms of wealth.

If you let it control you, everything is finished.

Goodbye.

Life. Wealth. Peace of mind.

It pays to master the line.

How do you feel the line?

By being invested, or in a trade.

How do you master the line?

By being invested or in a trade, again and again, again and again, and then some. Simultaneously, you’re nipping your bad behaviour in the bud, while the line is on.

You control your temper. You don’t lose it.

You develop patience with loved ones.

You learn how to position-size the line, while winning or losing.

You attenuate all kinds of disturbance.

You keep going on and on like this, till one fine day, the line’s presence becomes a part of your life. Line-switch being on doesn’t change you or alter your behaviour in any negative manner anymore.

That’s when you’re doing it right.

Effects?

Trade on = like when trade was not on.

Investment? You’re not thinking about it.

You sleep well.

Good family life… not disturbed by the presence of the line.

Yeah.

Line.

Master it.