How position sizing can affect your trading performance-

Assuming that you are trading a Trend-following system with Big RR and low win-rate.

For example, assume that you risk one percent per trade on a 100,000 account
and you have 20 straight losses.

That one percent is of your remaining equity and at the end of 20 losses, you would be down to 81,790.60.

Now if you got a 30R winner and you are risking one percent of your balance of 81,790.60, your new equity would be 106,327.9,
You’ve had 20 losses and one winner though you are still up 10Rplus your equity is up by 6.3R percent.

Now, let’s say you risk five percent per trade on your balance. At the end of 20 straight losses, you would be down to 35,772.89 or down 64 percent.
If you risk five percent on this amount and get a 30R winner, you would be up to 89,621.48. You are up 10R, but because of your position sizing, your equity is still down over 10 percent.

#positionsizing
#Trading
#nifty50
This is why position sizing is the most important factor in trading if you get it right and you have an edge, you will do good.

Thanks for reading till here.
@AnandableAnand @jitendrajain @quatltd @sohamtweet

More from Trader knight

More from Trading

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?