NexusFi: Find Your Edge


Home Menu

 





Sizing of runner position?


Discussion in Psychology and Money Management

Updated
      Top Posters
    1. looks_one strikebackfast with 4 posts (2 thanks)
    2. looks_two karoshiman with 2 posts (1 thanks)
    3. looks_3 baruchs with 1 posts (0 thanks)
    4. looks_4 SemiAlgomatic with 1 posts (0 thanks)
    1. trending_up 3,122 views
    2. thumb_up 6 thanks given
    3. group 4 followers
    1. forum 10 posts
    2. attach_file 0 attachments




 
Search this Thread

Sizing of runner position?

  #1 (permalink)
 strikebackfast 
Singapore
 
Experience: Beginner
Platform: Ninjatrader
Broker: DDT / Kinetick
Trading: 6E
Posts: 62 since Jun 2013
Thanks Given: 76
Thanks Received: 85

Hi guys, have a question for those more mathematically inclined.

I have been applying a "runner" position for my trading and have a small sample size of 30 trades. The results are as follows:
EV Exit 1: $10 / trade
EV Exit 2: $30 / trade

(I know this is a horribly small sample size, but I guess for the question it should not matter. I will be performing another 70 trades using the same trade management technique before coming to a conclusion.)

My question is this: should this result be relevant for my sizing of the runner position? I am now currently sizing it 1:1 - 1 lot for first exit, 1 lot for 2nd, and the results are shown above. Ignoring all psychological consequences (assuming I manage the runner position as optimally as possible whether it is 2lot or 1lot), how should I size my runner position?

Given the above result, is it mathematically more optimum for me to do All in All Out - managing every trade as I would as my "runner", or should I be sizing the position based on the ratio of expectancy? Which if the results persist for the entire 100 trade sample, I should be sizing my runner position 3:1 vs the first exit.

I have a hunch that I should be doing AIAO, working on my psychology instead of using a dual target system for maximum profit. However, I am curious if a 3:1 may actually work better given that some of my runners are stopped out for BE while the first position is hit.

Or is everything I said above just a mere play on psychology - it is psychologically easier to manage a trade after risk has been taken off the table - and for maximum profit, I should always do AIAO.

Visit my NexusFi Trade Journal Started this thread Reply With Quote

Can you help answer these questions
from other members on NexusFi?
Futures True Range Report
The Elite Circle
Better Renko Gaps
The Elite Circle
Are there any eval firms that allow you to sink to your …
Traders Hideout
ZombieSqueeze
Platforms and Indicators
The space time continuum and the dynamics of a financial …
Emini and Emicro Index
 
Best Threads (Most Thanked)
in the last 7 days on NexusFi
Get funded firms 2023/2024 - Any recommendations or word …
61 thanks
Funded Trader platforms
39 thanks
Battlestations: Show us your trading desks!
26 thanks
NexusFi site changelog and issues/problem reporting
25 thanks
The Program
17 thanks
  #3 (permalink)
 strikebackfast 
Singapore
 
Experience: Beginner
Platform: Ninjatrader
Broker: DDT / Kinetick
Trading: 6E
Posts: 62 since Jun 2013
Thanks Given: 76
Thanks Received: 85


Hi guys, apologies for a shameless bump.
Does anyone have any opinions on the above?

I am pretty much of the opinion for AIAO for maximum expectancy, but would love to hear affirmations/arguments against my stance.
That said, I think a scaling out approach may lead to better results, purely by virtue of psychologically related factors.

Thank you for your help!

Visit my NexusFi Trade Journal Started this thread Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)
 
DarkPoolTrading's Avatar
 DarkPoolTrading   is a Vendor
 
Posts: 1,036 since May 2012
Thanks Given: 1,244
Thanks Received: 1,326

Generally you'll find people saying that an all in - all out approach is superior from a mathematical point of view. And that is probably true in many cases. However it depends a lot on how you determine your targets and how often they are reached. Larger targets are reached less often but yield greater profit when they are finally reached.

I did an analysis on my own trading using 151 trades to determine which approach is better. You can read about it here

Based on my results, there wasn't a huge difference and so I decided to stick with my current all in - scale out approach.

The only way to truly know which approach will be best for your trading style will be to wait until you have a large enough sample size, and then go through your stats using different exit scenarios.

One thing to keep in mind is that the psychological benefits of scaling out should not be ignored.

Diversification is the only free lunch
Follow me on Twitter Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)
karoshiman
Munich, Germany
 
Posts: 285 since Apr 2012
Thanks Given: 121
Thanks Received: 117


strikebackfast View Post
Hi guys, have a question for those more mathematically inclined.

I have been applying a "runner" position for my trading and have a small sample size of 30 trades. The results are as follows:
EV Exit 1: $10 / trade
EV Exit 2: $30 / trade

...

I'm not sure whether I understand your question correctly, but I assume the risk in both scenarios is the same, since we are talking about the same setup.

If the risk is the same and the EV calculation has been correct, then I would trade with Exit 2 and AIAO only. Exit 1 can only make sense if you "need" it from a psychological point of view in order to trade well over time.

Yes, AIAO is superior compared to scaling due to the simple fact that the risk for scaled trades is usually the same as with your "ultimate" target. Hence, the risk/reward and the EV is worse for the scaled trades. Simple math.

Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
  #6 (permalink)
 strikebackfast 
Singapore
 
Experience: Beginner
Platform: Ninjatrader
Broker: DDT / Kinetick
Trading: 6E
Posts: 62 since Jun 2013
Thanks Given: 76
Thanks Received: 85

Thank you all for your answers.

I think I am kind of avoiding the psychological problem of holding out my trade for runners, being very inclined to reduce risk whenever possible.

I am by nature a very risk adverse person, and wouldn't actually mind sacrificing some profit just to lower the variance of my trading.

That said, I believe this is actually a psychological problem that I would have to address soon - if I truly want to be a really good trader.

I am experimenting with a discretionary style of exit, using order flow/price action/support resistance zones to determine a suitable point of exit. It is extremely difficult to say the least - much more difficult than finding a point of entry. I guess I'm starting to understand professional traders when they say you never truly master the exit.

Visit my NexusFi Trade Journal Started this thread Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
  #7 (permalink)
 baruchs 
Israel
 
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NinjaTrader
Broker: pfg
Trading: eminis
Posts: 323 since Jun 2009


Quoting 
Yes, AIAO is superior compared to scaling due to the simple fact that the risk for scaled trades is usually the same as with your "ultimate" target. Hence, the risk/reward and the EV is worse for the scaled trades. Simple math.

I too think (know) that AIAO is better, but your "simple math" is wrong.
With your math why not make the target even bigger? and then even bigger?

RR has no meaning without %Win.

Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)
 strikebackfast 
Singapore
 
Experience: Beginner
Platform: Ninjatrader
Broker: DDT / Kinetick
Trading: 6E
Posts: 62 since Jun 2013
Thanks Given: 76
Thanks Received: 85

Baruchs, yes you are right. However I was basing my math ( I am sure karoshiman was too) using expected value, which is a function of win% and win$. Hence, using math, if my EV is skewed towards exit 2, I should manage my trades to exit all at target2.

I think its just a mere misunderstanding. Cheers !

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

Visit my NexusFi Trade Journal Started this thread Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
  #9 (permalink)
karoshiman
Munich, Germany
 
Posts: 285 since Apr 2012
Thanks Given: 121
Thanks Received: 117


strikebackfast View Post
Baruchs, yes you are right. However I was basing my math ( I am sure karoshiman was too) using expected value, which is a function of win% and win$. Hence, using math, if my EV is skewed towards exit 2, I should manage my trades to exit all at target2.

I think its just a mere misunderstanding. Cheers !

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

@strikebackfast & @baruchs:

That was what I meant with "if... the EV calculation has been correct" in my post.

I assumed a proven or tested setup with certain win% and certain risk… not randomly making up some targets, just to "calculate" better EV. That makes obviously no sense.

Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)
 SemiAlgomatic 
New York NY, USA
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: ZLT
Trading: YM
Posts: 1 since Nov 2013
Thanks Given: 0
Thanks Received: 0


There is an interesting discussion about runners in the book "The Very Latest E-mini trading" (see Amazon link here. Truth is, the point of runners is to capture the excess profit potential unseen in probability/EV calculations, no? This is an interesting problem I'm trying to solve myself. I tend to think keeping 1/4-1/3 of original position size for runners, and moving stops to BE and subsequently trailing the stop higher/lower as the position moves in your favor.

Reply With Quote




Last Updated on November 25, 2013


© 2024 NexusFi™, s.a., All Rights Reserved.
Av Ricardo J. Alfaro, Century Tower, Panama City, Panama, Ph: +507 833-9432 (Panama and Intl), +1 888-312-3001 (USA and Canada)
All information is for educational use only and is not investment advice. There is a substantial risk of loss in trading commodity futures, stocks, options and foreign exchange products. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
About Us - Contact Us - Site Rules, Acceptable Use, and Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy - Downloads - Top
no new posts