The story of Yirbu

[Yirbu]

Today's EURUSD chart for chart lovers.
The starting idea was that the IB where it all started would fill a FVG and possibly take out Friday's high. It did and delivered 25ish pips.
Friday is an inside day so there was a chance price would shoot up, taking last weeks high out which is an inside week. It did but not with a lot of conviction and price bounced off the weekly high.
The daily IB and weekly IB are still in play so I like longs a little bit more.

So far I took 45+ pips

In the end...I will go where price takes me.

231023 - EUb.jpg (203.18 KiB) Viewed 49893 times

Edit: Yes, the letters are tiny.

[IgazI]

I'd be inclined to buy 1 unit and then increase by 1 unit when it is clear that the first trade is working.

"Scaling" is what you do during a trade, "adding" is what you do after a trade; increasing your min/max size.

wudda.png (60.89 KiB) Viewed 49887 times

[Yirbu]

I'd be inclined to buy 1 unit and then increase by 1 unit when it is clear that the first trade is working.

"Scaling" is what you do during a trade, "adding" is what you do after a trade; increasing your min/max size.

wudda.png

Ahhh...guess I'm mixing up the words.
But when you buy, your first unit is only partial Risk not so?

My initial position was 100% Risk.
If there is an opportunity I scale in more (again 100%) but only if I can set my 1st to b.e. I try to fund it with the profits of the initial trade.

Ideally it would have been at the first red arrow but that was too close. I missed the second red arrow. Here I would invest a new Risk unit because my first one would have been at b.e.

--_20231023_185504.jpg (246.39 KiB) Viewed 49874 times

[aliassmith]

I'd be inclined to buy 1 unit and then increase by 1 unit when it is clear that the first trade is working.

"Scaling" is what you do during a trade, "adding" is what you do after a trade; increasing your min/max size.

wudda.png

Ahhh...guess I'm mixing up the words.
But when you buy, your first unit is only partial Risk not so?

My initial position was 100% Risk.
If there is an opportunity I scale in more (again 100%) but only if I can set my 1st to b.e. I try to fund it with the profits of the initial trade.

Ideally it would have been at the first red arrow but that was too close. I missed the second red arrow. Here I would invest a new Risk unit because my first one would have been at b.e.

--_20231023_185504.jpg

You didn't mix anything. Scaling, adding, stacking, are the same idea.

[Yirbu]

I wonder what provides the best growth:

Trading smaller positions, +, +, +, take profit and trade with a larger size where you invest the profit.
or
Trading max Risk, +, +, +, take profit and start all over.

I think the latter however it's more risky because when price goes against you, your profits are gone real fast.
The same applies with the second method, if things go wrong, you end up with nothing. It's just the risk when you get on board is smaller.

Gonna calculate it.

[BambinoFlex]

I wonder what provides the best growth:

Trading smaller positions, +, +, +, take profit and trade with a larger size where you invest the profit.
or
Trading max Risk, +, +, +, take profit and start all over.

I think the latter however it's more risky because when price goes against you, your profits are gone real fast.
The same applies with the second method, if things go wrong, you end up with nothing. It's just the risk when you get on board is smaller.

Gonna calculate it.

In a perfect world, I would say option 2.

In our world, I would say option 1. This option offers more defense, as starting, you’re not entering at full risk. It would seem that this approach will look better on paper and will result in actual trading success for most people.

[IgazI]

You didn't mix anything. Scaling, adding, stacking, are the same idea.

This is all I'm trying to say. . .

Scaling:
1 + 1 + 2
Stacking:
2 + 2 + 4
3 + 3 + 6
5 + 5 + 10

@Yirbu
Is it better to just buy 4 units and risk 2% instead of 1 unit risking 0.5%?

th.jpg (6.54 KiB) Viewed 49833 times

[Yirbu]

@Yirbu
Is it better to just buy 4 units and risk 2% instead of 1 unit risking 0.5%?

th.jpg

No, I would never do that.
What I do is risk x% (max risk per trade), wait until I can put trade 1 to b.e. and if a good opportunity comes by I risk another x%. So I will always have my personal max risk in the game and I never ever go beyond that.
I do this on a candle by candle basis: If a candle has momentum and little or no wicks I will buy more on that candle. SL goes below that candle. Same for the next candle until price turns or I run out of margin.

[Yirbu]

I wonder what provides the best growth:

Trading smaller positions, +, +, +, take profit and trade with a larger size where you invest the profit.
or
Trading max Risk, +, +, +, take profit and start all over.

I think the latter however it's more risky because when price goes against you, your profits are gone real fast.
The same applies with the second method, if things go wrong, you end up with nothing. It's just the risk when you get on board is smaller.

Gonna calculate it.

In a perfect world, I would say option 2.

In our world, I would say option 1. This option offers more defense, as starting, you’re not entering at full risk. It would seem that this approach will look better on paper and will result in actual trading success for most people.

Yes, that's was my first thought too.
But I found out that I am and I enjoy being quite aggressive at trading.
Also it obviously depends on the win rate. Because mine goes up and down with quite big variances it seems option 2 works better in some circumstances.
I need to think this through better

[aliassmith]

You didn't mix anything. Scaling, adding, stacking, are the same idea.

This is all I'm trying to say. . .

Scaling:
1 + 1 + 2
Stacking:
2 + 2 + 4
3 + 3 + 6
5 + 5 + 10

@Yirbu
Is it better to just buy 4 units and risk 2% instead of 1 unit risking 0.5%?

th.jpg

Definitely better to risk 0.5% and make 10x.