Where is the 45 degree trendline? I thought PNF relied on those 45s pretty heavily?

Old Wives tales! Combine old school price action with position sizing and positive expectancy and things like 45deg lines don't hold a candle.

• Impulse
• Corrective (contraction)
• Expansion

Add in position sizing, and it is now, more than enough. Plus I have never understood trend-lines, median lines yes, trend-lines - no. If I added 45deg TD channels (there are a couple here)some things do stand out, but the RR is considerably poorer. Maybe something like this -



It doesnt seem too bad, my instinct is to find the stop first, so I use the contraction abc pullback method. Using TD or PNF SR argument I could merit in this -

In fact I think this below is much purer than what I do, but this is very nuanced. It is something I am striving for - not that easy. Lot of very subtle things on this chart

• Channel support
• Break up
• A break down
• Retrace into measured area (short is here)
• Stop is edge (inside price, not outside it)
• RR is staggering (over 15R), if measured in contraction expansion terms

Makes perfect sense...then scale in on the way down yes????

Also: what about this?

Perhaps, But I am terrible at scaling, I realize. How would you do that? I can see the merit of scaling totally, but the way I do it now is simpler, in out, and try not to interfere with the original RR. If I can do what Private Banker with Core-Satellite, it makes sense. But its much harder than I used to think

Scaling in only makes sense if you entered a very smal position initially. Otherwise, NO. As you can see both cases I have presented go all in, One entry, One target.

I am not sure how scaling would go in the above example. Give it a try. I have some vague ideas, not I don't trust them enough to give me additional RR.

I give you an example of what I think is ideal scaling in. and it is below -


I am very aware this goes against adding when price goes in your favour, but I have never understood how RR improves in that manner. Perhaps someone will indulge me

PS - I don't any weight a a single Fib by oneself, that's ridiculous, but the whole band is different, or some other price behaviour, or high volume bar. Generally something else in addition. But that is exactly why that initial trade idea was not taken by me. It was too flimsy

PPS - All ideas revolve around either AIAO od SIAO, I completely reject any AISO. AISO is the abhorrent and unacceptable to me. It is reversing RR. I don't care how many do it and how good they are with it. SISO is also same as AISO

I agree, AIAO or SIAO is the only way to go. Mathematically AIAO is superior to all. However, scaling in does have an advantage. You get to test the waters so to speak with a small position. If the market proves your right, you add on the bulk of your position in either 1/3rds or you add most of it as soon as you can have a risk free trade and then the remainder sometime after that. So it might be 1/5, 3/5 and then 1/5. At that point, if you lose on any of it, its the small bit at nearer the end. So it falls into the idea of lose small win big. You are most vunerable at the beginning so have the smallest lot on. Don't add to it if it goes against you UNLESS you plan on that and are willing to lose with a full position on. The method you showed on your chart ensures you lose with a full position on, however each add loses less, still its a full bleed if you are wrong.

Scaling in is all about incremental profit if you are right and being small if you are wrong.

Initial thoughts on this: Keep in mind I am still working on this myself. Take it with a grain of salt.

Indeed, well put, logical. If you add this way you are increasing the RR. The one thing you have to be careful of is what happen if shit goes to hell.

Theoretically, you have 3/4 entries, what about your stops. For example - such a trade should have active trade management (something I don't, not in FX). I set it and leave it.

If not, for active entries - you cannot subject new entries to old stops, so as you add, the stops have to get tighter other wise you would subject the whole position to greater risk. Perhaps something like this -


For day trading I think this is really delicate and has great potential. As I don't particularly watch my entries and exits on this account, I simply enter AIAO, either it works or not. Sometimes the markets stops me out and gives me a new entry. AS long I maintain 2R - 3R or higher, this is generally not an issue. I can leave these positions on over days and let them work out.

You have nailed it...the stop must tighten, otherwise your risk goes off the charts. If done correctly, everything after the second entry should be risk free. I think the way you've laid it out works perfectly.

I've found that adding on is more difficult that I would have otherwise thought in daytrading...for me I want the secondary entry to produce a risk free trade once the stop is moved up to BE or somewhere close and that can be difficult to do if its a range day....it depends on how much your expect the instrument to move and where the pull backs are.

However, on forex, it makes brilliant sense. Especially if your time frames are longer than a five minute chart....I use 4 hour charts and once it gets into a trend, there are usually 2-5 opportunities to add on safely over the course of several days or even weeks. The profit potential is huge.

Here is a recent forex trade I did. Its in micros so don't get excited. I chart on 6E so I can monitor it in Ninja and execute on the web platform of my forex broker. Its not identical but close enough for what I need. It illustrates how this might work.....I went in with 25% of what I wanted to ultimately have on, added 50% at the second opportunity and 25% at the break out pull back. I exited the whole thing about 5 bars ago. It had reached the structural target which is not on this chart. All in all, a very nice win.