The subject of sizing is almost unarguable. Where the markets are concerned, money creates opportunities, the more money you have, the more opportunities you have, it's that simple.
This statement relies on all market participants being equal in knowledge.
Now do you see why the subject of sizing is almost defunct in itself.
There is no answer to it, no real answer.
Hope i don't seem too blunt, please, correct me if i am wrong.
Thanks.![]()
I will not try to correct anyone since the subject as you say appears so blurred.
One thing I know for sure is my past real money test of a anti martingale method. In one trading account I always purchased long/sold short the same round lot of shares (100) regardless of price, volatility, account size, etc., for many different stocks I got signals to trade. In the other account I adjusted position size using an anti-martingale method. I traded very short term in excess of 30 different stocks over a period of 6 months.
Not surprising that the first account (fixed number of shares) performed much better, almost by a factor of 2.50. One could try to identify superficial causes and explanations for that but I think there is one that it is the most important:
The market does not like "smart play" attempts and punish them at first chance. Stay as simple as possible, this is my own lesson I got from the market. Any attempt to maximize future gains obviously involves an attempt to predict the future twice. Once is enough, ref. opening a position. Twice proves fatal most of the time, ref. the attempt to maximize the expected gain of the first prediction.
Alex