I'm not advocating anything, there are a million good ways to trade and organise staking. I'm just saying where you open trades and how much you stake must have firm logic and reasoning. Any strategy that involves adding to a trade with increased stakes when it goes against you, either to recoup losses or any other reason, is highly risky to say the least.Morbius wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:14 pm
You make an interesting point Derek but am I right in thinking that you are advocating having say a fixed lay liability in your example with your £100 and then instead of a one hit or two hit process you are spreading with entries of say 10-10-10-10-20-20-20 instead of say 40-60??? The problem I have been experiencing is that my plan of several entries that I have spread out over a significant distance has still been struggling in 1-2 races per day on average where the price has simply moved in one direction and never retraced enough to offset the additional spreads and losses. Then the market tanks as it approaches SP and I am looking at a big red. I can't see how in long trending markets that don't retrace how a gentle spread like that can offset a red screen without being aggressive. Another problem with my approach is the scalability of it as aggressively increasing stakes will also hit liquidity problems especially in weaker markets.
Am I missing something or as Peter says, should I just take my losses like a man
Personally I don't often add to a trade but adding to a trade that's going my way sounds far more appealing to me than doubling down on one that's gone against me.