Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Mastering the math of position sizing by capping initial risk at exactly 0.4% to 0.5% is the key to executing stress-free add-on buys. Marios Stamatoudis, a disciplined breakout trader known for his strict mathematical approach to risk management, details his precise framework for scaling into winning stocks. By taking... show more

TraderLion

226,666 subscribers

19,223 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Most swing traders size off a daily chart stop. That wide stop forces a small position to keep risk in check. Shake drops to the 30-minute chart for the entry. The stop tightens, and the math allows three times the shares on the identical risk budget. Same trade idea, same dollar risk — the only difference is where you measured your stop.

Most swing traders size off a daily chart stop. That wide stop forces a small position to keep risk in check. Shake drops to the 30-minute chart for the entry. The stop tightens, and the math allows three times the shares on the identical risk budget. Same trade idea, same dollar risk — the only difference is where you measured your stop.

TraderLion

31,856 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Tighten the stop, size up. That isn't aggressive risk-taking; it's the actual math of R-multiple position sizing. Brian Shannon walks through it on TraderLion. The originator of Anchored VWAP and a 35-year professional trader breaks down how a $100K account with $1,000 max risk gets 4,000 shares on a 25-cent stop and only 1,000 shares on a one-dollar stop. His honesty test: is your tight stop a real higher low, or a number you picked so you can size up?

Tighten the stop, size up. That isn't aggressive risk-taking; it's the actual math of R-multiple position sizing. Brian Shannon walks through it on TraderLion. The originator of Anchored VWAP and a 35-year professional trader breaks down how a $100K account with $1,000 max risk gets 4,000 shares on a 25-cent stop and only 1,000 shares on a one-dollar stop. His honesty test: is your tight stop a real higher low, or a number you picked so you can size up?

TraderLion

22,888 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

"If you're looking at risk management, there is now an opportunity for #investors to potentially take some profits off the table and leave a little bit of their position long," says Delano Saporu to Frank Holland about $NVDA

"If you're looking at risk management, there is now an opportunity for #investors to potentially take some profits off the table and leave a little bit of their position long," says Delano Saporu to Frank Holland about $NVDA

Morning Call

17,867 просмотров • 3 лет назад

Ross Haber used to avoid buying in the lower half of a base — now it’s where he builds full positions. By entering early on consolidation pivots, he gets flexibility at the breakout: ignore it, add to strength, or lower his cost. The edge is earned before the breakout.

Ross Haber used to avoid buying in the lower half of a base — now it’s where he builds full positions. By entering early on consolidation pivots, he gets flexibility at the breakout: ignore it, add to strength, or lower his cost. The edge is earned before the breakout.

TraderLion

14,967 просмотров • 1 год назад

One common reason why traders blow up is because of poor position sizing. In other words, how much do you bet on a trade. You can be right on direction 60% of the time and still lose everything if you size your positions poorly. One oversized trade can wipe out months of gains. This is why position sizing is a big part of risk management. Sandeep Rao - SEBI Reg. RA🖖 recently spoke to Tom Basso, one of the original Market Wizards, to discuss his approach to trading. I was listening to the interview and the one thing that stood out to me was how Tom's thinking on position sizing evolved over decades. He started simple: risk the same percentage of equity on every trade, inspired by Larry Hite's philosophy that every bet should be equal in terms of potential loss. But then came a silver trade with explosive volatility. Clients were calling, nervous about the wild swings. So he realized it wasn't just about the amount you could lose—it was also about the speed of movement. High volatility creates psychological stress that leads to poor decisions. So he added a second layer: volatility as a percentage of equity. Now he'd calculate both risk % and volatility %, then take the smaller of the two. Then came the third refinement: margin-to-equity ratios. Some markets have deceptively low risk and volatility but require high margin because of sudden jump risk. By incorporating all three factors, he never got caught overexposed. The result was a position sizing system that automatically scales down when markets get too volatile, protects against margin squeezes, and keeps portfolio risk in check. It's really interesting conversation. Link to the full interview is in the comments.

One common reason why traders blow up is because of poor position sizing. In other words, how much do you bet on a trade. You can be right on direction 60% of the time and still lose everything if you size your positions poorly. One oversized trade can wipe out months of gains. This is why position sizing is a big part of risk management. Sandeep Rao - SEBI Reg. RA🖖 recently spoke to Tom Basso, one of the original Market Wizards, to discuss his approach to trading. I was listening to the interview and the one thing that stood out to me was how Tom's thinking on position sizing evolved over decades. He started simple: risk the same percentage of equity on every trade, inspired by Larry Hite's philosophy that every bet should be equal in terms of potential loss. But then came a silver trade with explosive volatility. Clients were calling, nervous about the wild swings. So he realized it wasn't just about the amount you could lose—it was also about the speed of movement. High volatility creates psychological stress that leads to poor decisions. So he added a second layer: volatility as a percentage of equity. Now he'd calculate both risk % and volatility %, then take the smaller of the two. Then came the third refinement: margin-to-equity ratios. Some markets have deceptively low risk and volatility but require high margin because of sudden jump risk. By incorporating all three factors, he never got caught overexposed. The result was a position sizing system that automatically scales down when markets get too volatile, protects against margin squeezes, and keeps portfolio risk in check. It's really interesting conversation. Link to the full interview is in the comments.

Nithin Kamath

59,268 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Q: Should startups always raise as much money as possible? In the clip below, Marc Andreessen shares a framework that Benchmark co-founder Andy Rachleff taught him called "The Onion Theory of Risk". You can think of a day 1 startup as having every conceivable kind of risk: founding team risk, product risk, technical risk, market acceptance risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk, viral growth risk, etc. A startup is basically just a long list of risks, and as Marc explains: "The way I think about running a startup is the way I think about raising money. It's a process of peeling away layers of risk as you go." You raise seed money to peel away the first two or three risks (e.g. founding team risk, product risk, initial launch risk). You raise the Series A round to peel away the next layer of risks (e.g. recruiting risk, customer risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk) And so on. Basically, you're peeling away risk as you're achieving milestones. And as you achieve milestones, you're both: making progress on your business and justifying raising more capital. So in terms of fundraising, you should be calibrating the amount of money you're raising to the risks you need to pull out of your business for you to raise your next round. For example, if you're raising your Series A round, the best way to do that is to say to investors: "I raised a seed round then achieved ____ milestones and eliminated ____ risks. Now I'm going to raise $X for the Series A to achieve ____ milestones and eliminate ____ risks. This will get the company to ____ state for the Series B round. " This seems fairly obvious, but as Marc points out, it's a much more systematic way of going about things versus just raising as much money as possible, renting fancy offices, and hiring as many people as you can to grow as fast as you can. The more money you raise, the more you dilute your ownership stake in your business so it pays to be thoughtful. Raise the capital you will need to achieve the milestones and eliminate the risks required for your next financing round. It also probably makes sense to give yourself some margin as safety because things never go exactly as planned in startup land. Follow Startup Archive for more tactical startup advice!

Q: Should startups always raise as much money as possible? In the clip below, Marc Andreessen shares a framework that Benchmark co-founder Andy Rachleff taught him called "The Onion Theory of Risk". You can think of a day 1 startup as having every conceivable kind of risk: founding team risk, product risk, technical risk, market acceptance risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk, viral growth risk, etc. A startup is basically just a long list of risks, and as Marc explains: "The way I think about running a startup is the way I think about raising money. It's a process of peeling away layers of risk as you go." You raise seed money to peel away the first two or three risks (e.g. founding team risk, product risk, initial launch risk). You raise the Series A round to peel away the next layer of risks (e.g. recruiting risk, customer risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk) And so on. Basically, you're peeling away risk as you're achieving milestones. And as you achieve milestones, you're both: making progress on your business and justifying raising more capital. So in terms of fundraising, you should be calibrating the amount of money you're raising to the risks you need to pull out of your business for you to raise your next round. For example, if you're raising your Series A round, the best way to do that is to say to investors: "I raised a seed round then achieved milestones and eliminated risks. Now I'm going to raise $X for the Series A to achieve milestones and eliminate risks. This will get the company to state for the Series B round. " This seems fairly obvious, but as Marc points out, it's a much more systematic way of going about things versus just raising as much money as possible, renting fancy offices, and hiring as many people as you can to grow as fast as you can. The more money you raise, the more you dilute your ownership stake in your business so it pays to be thoughtful. Raise the capital you will need to achieve the milestones and eliminate the risks required for your next financing round. It also probably makes sense to give yourself some margin as safety because things never go exactly as planned in startup land. Follow Startup Archive for more tactical startup advice!

Startup Archive

178,597 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Q: Should startups always raise as much money as possible? In the clip below, Marc Andreessen shares a framework that Benchmark co-founder Andy Rachleff taught him called "The Onion Theory of Risk". You can think of a day 1 startup as having every conceivable kind of risk: founding team risk, product risk, technical risk, market acceptance risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk, viral growth risk, etc. A startup is basically just a long list of risks, and as Marc explains: "The way I think about running a startup is the way I think about raising money. It's a process of peeling away layers of risk as you go." You raise seed money to peel away the first two or three risks (e.g. founding team risk, product risk, initial launch risk). You raise the Series A round to peel away the next layer of risks (e.g. recruiting risk, customer risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk) And so on. Basically, you're peeling away risk as you're achieving milestones. And as you achieve milestones, you're both: making progress on your business and justifying raising more capital. So in terms of fundraising, you should be calibrating the amount money you're raising to the risks you need to pull out of your business for you to raise your next round. For example, if you're raising your Series A round, the best way to do that is to say to investors: "I raised a seed round then achieved ____ milestones and eliminated ____ risks. Now I'm going to raise $X for the Series A to achieve ____ milestones and eliminate ____ risks. This will get the company to ____ state for the Series B round. " This seems fairly obvious, but as Marc points out, it's a much more systematic way of going about things versus just raising as much money as possible, renting fancy offices, and hiring as many people as you can to grow as fast as you can. The more money you raise, the more you dilute your ownership stake in your business so it pays to be thoughtful. Raise the capital you will need to achieve the milestones and eliminate the risks required for your next financing round. It also probably makes sense to give yourself some margin as safety because things never go exactly as planned in startup land.

Q: Should startups always raise as much money as possible? In the clip below, Marc Andreessen shares a framework that Benchmark co-founder Andy Rachleff taught him called "The Onion Theory of Risk". You can think of a day 1 startup as having every conceivable kind of risk: founding team risk, product risk, technical risk, market acceptance risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk, viral growth risk, etc. A startup is basically just a long list of risks, and as Marc explains: "The way I think about running a startup is the way I think about raising money. It's a process of peeling away layers of risk as you go." You raise seed money to peel away the first two or three risks (e.g. founding team risk, product risk, initial launch risk). You raise the Series A round to peel away the next layer of risks (e.g. recruiting risk, customer risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk) And so on. Basically, you're peeling away risk as you're achieving milestones. And as you achieve milestones, you're both: making progress on your business and justifying raising more capital. So in terms of fundraising, you should be calibrating the amount money you're raising to the risks you need to pull out of your business for you to raise your next round. For example, if you're raising your Series A round, the best way to do that is to say to investors: "I raised a seed round then achieved milestones and eliminated risks. Now I'm going to raise $X for the Series A to achieve milestones and eliminate risks. This will get the company to state for the Series B round. " This seems fairly obvious, but as Marc points out, it's a much more systematic way of going about things versus just raising as much money as possible, renting fancy offices, and hiring as many people as you can to grow as fast as you can. The more money you raise, the more you dilute your ownership stake in your business so it pays to be thoughtful. Raise the capital you will need to achieve the milestones and eliminate the risks required for your next financing round. It also probably makes sense to give yourself some margin as safety because things never go exactly as planned in startup land.

Michael McGuiness

735,645 просмотров • 3 лет назад

Numerai founder Richard Craib doesn't deny that Leopold is a visionary, but says that his extraordinary returns were driven much more by banal risk than alpha. "There's a place for that type of fund. Where you're going to take a big bet with a lot of risk." "And those types of funds can obviously produce extraordinary returns." "But the trouble is, the driver of the return is the risk, more than the alpha." "The alpha is there, but the driver of the return is the risk."

Numerai founder Richard Craib doesn't deny that Leopold is a visionary, but says that his extraordinary returns were driven much more by banal risk than alpha. "There's a place for that type of fund. Where you're going to take a big bet with a lot of risk." "And those types of funds can obviously produce extraordinary returns." "But the trouble is, the driver of the return is the risk, more than the alpha." "The alpha is there, but the driver of the return is the risk."

TBPN

71,474 просмотров • 12 дней назад

Marc Andreessen explains the “Onion Theory of Risk” “I think the single-biggest thing entrepreneurs are missing — both on fundraising and how they run their companies — is the relationship between risk and cash. I’ve always been a fan of something Andy Rachleff taught me years ago. He calls it the ‘Onion Theory of Risk.’” You can think of a day 1 startup as having every conceivable kind of risk: founding team risk, product risk, technical risk, market acceptance risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk, viral growth risk, etc. A startup is basically just a long list of risks, and as Marc explains: "The way I think about running a startup is the way I think about raising money. It's a process of peeling away layers of risk as you go." You raise seed money to peel away the first two or three risks (e.g. founding team risk, product risk, initial launch risk). You raise the Series A round to peel away the next layer of risks (e.g. recruiting risk, customer risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk) And so on. Basically, you're peeling away risk as you're achieving milestones. And as you achieve milestones, you're both: making progress on your business and justifying raising more capital. So in terms of fundraising, you should be calibrating the amount money you're raising to the risks you need to pull out of your business for you to raise your next round. For example, if you're raising your Series A round, the best way to do that is to say to investors: "I raised a seed round then achieved ____ milestones and eliminated ____ risks. Now I'm going to raise $ X for the Series A to achieve ____ milestones and eliminate ____ risks. This will get the company to ____ state for the Series B round. " This seems fairly obvious, but as Marc points out, it's a much more systematic way of going about things versus just raising as much money as possible, renting fancy offices, and hiring as many people as you can to grow as fast as you can. The more money you raise, the more you dilute your ownership stake in your business so it pays to be thoughtful. Raise the capital you will need to achieve the milestones and eliminate the risks required for your next financing round. It also probably makes sense to give yourself some margin as safety because things never go exactly as planned in startup land. Video source: Y Combinator (2014)

Marc Andreessen explains the “Onion Theory of Risk” “I think the single-biggest thing entrepreneurs are missing — both on fundraising and how they run their companies — is the relationship between risk and cash. I’ve always been a fan of something Andy Rachleff taught me years ago. He calls it the ‘Onion Theory of Risk.’” You can think of a day 1 startup as having every conceivable kind of risk: founding team risk, product risk, technical risk, market acceptance risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk, viral growth risk, etc. A startup is basically just a long list of risks, and as Marc explains: "The way I think about running a startup is the way I think about raising money. It's a process of peeling away layers of risk as you go." You raise seed money to peel away the first two or three risks (e.g. founding team risk, product risk, initial launch risk). You raise the Series A round to peel away the next layer of risks (e.g. recruiting risk, customer risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk) And so on. Basically, you're peeling away risk as you're achieving milestones. And as you achieve milestones, you're both: making progress on your business and justifying raising more capital. So in terms of fundraising, you should be calibrating the amount money you're raising to the risks you need to pull out of your business for you to raise your next round. For example, if you're raising your Series A round, the best way to do that is to say to investors: "I raised a seed round then achieved milestones and eliminated risks. Now I'm going to raise $ X for the Series A to achieve milestones and eliminate risks. This will get the company to state for the Series B round. " This seems fairly obvious, but as Marc points out, it's a much more systematic way of going about things versus just raising as much money as possible, renting fancy offices, and hiring as many people as you can to grow as fast as you can. The more money you raise, the more you dilute your ownership stake in your business so it pays to be thoughtful. Raise the capital you will need to achieve the milestones and eliminate the risks required for your next financing round. It also probably makes sense to give yourself some margin as safety because things never go exactly as planned in startup land. Video source: Y Combinator (2014)

Startup Archive

63,274 просмотров • 1 год назад

Lp(a) is the new Voldemort of cardiology—a genetically determined risk factor that can raise your risk of heart disease by 200–300%. And while elevated Lp(a) is largely written into your DNA, there’s some surprisingly good news: You may be able to neutralize its risk by dropping visceral fat. Research suggests that a low waist-to-hip ratio (a proxy for low visceral fat) can significantly blunt—or even offset—the cardiovascular risk associated with high Lp(a). In other words: You might not be able to change your genes—but you can change how much they matter. If you want to go deeper, check out the letters linked below where I break down the research and exactly how to reduce visceral fat.

Lp(a) is the new Voldemort of cardiology—a genetically determined risk factor that can raise your risk of heart disease by 200–300%. And while elevated Lp(a) is largely written into your DNA, there’s some surprisingly good news: You may be able to neutralize its risk by dropping visceral fat. Research suggests that a low waist-to-hip ratio (a proxy for low visceral fat) can significantly blunt—or even offset—the cardiovascular risk associated with high Lp(a). In other words: You might not be able to change your genes—but you can change how much they matter. If you want to go deeper, check out the letters linked below where I break down the research and exactly how to reduce visceral fat.

Nick Norwitz MD PhD

13,550 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

I’m at Napa in my Cybertruck for my birthday, hands completely off the wheel on FSD. Starlink got me fully connected from the middle of nowhere so I can post my thoughts on 𝕏… and I’m living financially free. People always want to know the secret. The truth is, it’s rarely the smartest person who makes it… it’s the one willing to take the risk. The one crazy enough to bet on themselves when the odds weren’t in their favor and the path wasn’t guaranteed. I earned this by going all in on me. So if you’re out there with a dream… stop overthinking it. Take the risk. The life on the other side waits for the bold.

I’m at Napa in my Cybertruck for my birthday, hands completely off the wheel on FSD. Starlink got me fully connected from the middle of nowhere so I can post my thoughts on 𝕏… and I’m living financially free. People always want to know the secret. The truth is, it’s rarely the smartest person who makes it… it’s the one willing to take the risk. The one crazy enough to bet on themselves when the odds weren’t in their favor and the path wasn’t guaranteed. I earned this by going all in on me. So if you’re out there with a dream… stop overthinking it. Take the risk. The life on the other side waits for the bold.

Teslaconomics

12,968 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Orlando Pirates Talent Earns Finance Degree from Wits 21-year-old Moses Mphekgoane has graduated with a Bachelor of Commerce (BCom) degree in Finance from the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits), majoring in Corporate Finance & Investment and Insurance & Risk Management. This is a big achievement for the defender, who balanced his football career at Pirates with his education. Mphekgoane is a key player in the Pirates side bidding to clinch the #DStvDiskiChallenge title for the first time.

Orlando Pirates Talent Earns Finance Degree from Wits 21-year-old Moses Mphekgoane has graduated with a Bachelor of Commerce (BCom) degree in Finance from the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits), majoring in Corporate Finance & Investment and Insurance & Risk Management. This is a big achievement for the defender, who balanced his football career at Pirates with his education. Mphekgoane is a key player in the Pirates side bidding to clinch the #DStvDiskiChallenge title for the first time.

Austin Ditlhobolo

248,889 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

$GOOG's Ruth Porat says the biggest risk in the AI buildout is the ROI question, and focusing on short-term tactics at the cost of building a great company. "I think the biggest risk for everyone is when the question is asked, which it often is, how do you get to an ROI? That's going to force our teams to do something short-term and tactical. You can always do a cost cut to get something to drop to the bottom line, and that is not a way to build a great company." "So I think the risk is don't be so in the moment maniacally focused on what is it, but have a right mix of an engine that's continuing to drive the business, which also explains why you need to start building early for growth so that you can grow into it." ____ Follow Fireside Alpha for more daily highlights of key business and technology conversations.

$GOOG's Ruth Porat says the biggest risk in the AI buildout is the ROI question, and focusing on short-term tactics at the cost of building a great company. "I think the biggest risk for everyone is when the question is asked, which it often is, how do you get to an ROI? That's going to force our teams to do something short-term and tactical. You can always do a cost cut to get something to drop to the bottom line, and that is not a way to build a great company." "So I think the risk is don't be so in the moment maniacally focused on what is it, but have a right mix of an engine that's continuing to drive the business, which also explains why you need to start building early for growth so that you can grow into it." ____ Follow Fireside Alpha for more daily highlights of key business and technology conversations.

Fireside Alpha

38,361 просмотров • 28 дней назад

Mark Minervini didn't wait for perfect conditions. He tightened stops and took quicker profits to keep compounding through a choppy breakout environment. That adjustment wasn't reactive — it was deliberate. Matching risk parameters to the actual regime in front of you is a skill most traders never develop. Choppy markets don't have to mean sitting still. They require a different calibration, not a pause.

Mark Minervini didn't wait for perfect conditions. He tightened stops and took quicker profits to keep compounding through a choppy breakout environment. That adjustment wasn't reactive — it was deliberate. Matching risk parameters to the actual regime in front of you is a skill most traders never develop. Choppy markets don't have to mean sitting still. They require a different calibration, not a pause.

TraderLion

17,488 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Markets that trade below the 21SMA or 50SMA are inherently choppy, with gaps in either direction expected day to day. If we do get more large gap downs over the coming weeks, here are some guidelines to live by (especially if you have exposure on): — Gap downs are rare in strong stocks with solid setups, but they do happen. And here's the truth: They're the market's way of telling you your original trading thesis was wrong. — The real damage of gap downs isn't just to your account — it's what they do to your head. They trigger: → Anger ("This market is rigged!") → Revenge trading ("I'll make it back today!") → Frozen decision-making ("Maybe it'll bounce back?") All three lead to even BIGGER losses. — But here's how top level traders handle gap downs (which you can easily implement): They know their numbers. ∙Exactly how much $ they lost ∙What % of their portfolio it represents ∙How many winning trades it'll take to recover Emotions cloud judgment. Numbers bring clarity. Pro traders think in terms of "R-multiples" — how many times their initial risk they've won or lost. If you risked $500 (1R) and lose $1,500 on a gap down, that's -3R. Sounds bad, but if you're up +20R on the year, you can put that -3R in perspective. — NEVER rationalize after a gap down: ❌ "It's just a market overreaction" ❌ "The news wasn't that bad" ❌ "It'll probably bounce back today" These thoughts feel good in the moment but lead to much bigger losses. Cut the position and move on. — Think like a US Investing Champ. They get caught in downside gaps from time to time too. The difference? They know it's part of the game. They have a system to manage risk and recover: ∙They exit the position ∙They know their numbers ∙They trust their strategy over time — Next time you face a gap down: 1) Exit the position without hesitation 2) Calculate the exact impact on your portfolio 3) Step away from trading for the day 4) Return tomorrow with a clear head Protect your capital AND your confidence. 🦁

Markets that trade below the 21SMA or 50SMA are inherently choppy, with gaps in either direction expected day to day. If we do get more large gap downs over the coming weeks, here are some guidelines to live by (especially if you have exposure on): — Gap downs are rare in strong stocks with solid setups, but they do happen. And here's the truth: They're the market's way of telling you your original trading thesis was wrong. — The real damage of gap downs isn't just to your account — it's what they do to your head. They trigger: → Anger ("This market is rigged!") → Revenge trading ("I'll make it back today!") → Frozen decision-making ("Maybe it'll bounce back?") All three lead to even BIGGER losses. — But here's how top level traders handle gap downs (which you can easily implement): They know their numbers. ∙Exactly how much $ they lost ∙What % of their portfolio it represents ∙How many winning trades it'll take to recover Emotions cloud judgment. Numbers bring clarity. Pro traders think in terms of "R-multiples" — how many times their initial risk they've won or lost. If you risked $500 (1R) and lose $1,500 on a gap down, that's -3R. Sounds bad, but if you're up +20R on the year, you can put that -3R in perspective. — NEVER rationalize after a gap down: ❌ "It's just a market overreaction" ❌ "The news wasn't that bad" ❌ "It'll probably bounce back today" These thoughts feel good in the moment but lead to much bigger losses. Cut the position and move on. — Think like a US Investing Champ. They get caught in downside gaps from time to time too. The difference? They know it's part of the game. They have a system to manage risk and recover: ∙They exit the position ∙They know their numbers ∙They trust their strategy over time — Next time you face a gap down: 1) Exit the position without hesitation 2) Calculate the exact impact on your portfolio 3) Step away from trading for the day 4) Return tomorrow with a clear head Protect your capital AND your confidence. 🦁

TraderLion

20,584 просмотров • 1 год назад

🧩When to add to winners? 💡Averaging up in a trade (adding to your winner) is increasing reward value without increasing any risk 💵I like to call it on stream as "using house money" When I catch a nice entry, I keep in mind market conditions, my confidence in the draw on liquidity, time levels, and upcoming PDarrays 🎯I do take partials at major time levels or areas I think price could turn to pay myself and then from there, the remaining contracts are now allowing me to trade with "house money" 💥Once I feel more confident on draw on liquidity, I then wait for pullbacks into 5min PDarray or key time levels 🥊These are the times I look to add (average up) into my winners Anytime I add to my winner, I keep my stop to BE. Adding to a winner will bring your BE closer, but if you are able to strategically time it, many times you can squeeze out more profits after your targets were hit Yes you will hit BE often, but keep in mind this is after my initial targets were hit and I have paid myself. In theory my trade completed, but I leave on enough to then "re-build" a whole new position again This trade from yesterday on stream shows examples of this. Not always easy to do, but when it works it pays off. Again, the key here is no additional risk for more profits

🧩When to add to winners? 💡Averaging up in a trade (adding to your winner) is increasing reward value without increasing any risk 💵I like to call it on stream as "using house money" When I catch a nice entry, I keep in mind market conditions, my confidence in the draw on liquidity, time levels, and upcoming PDarrays 🎯I do take partials at major time levels or areas I think price could turn to pay myself and then from there, the remaining contracts are now allowing me to trade with "house money" 💥Once I feel more confident on draw on liquidity, I then wait for pullbacks into 5min PDarray or key time levels 🥊These are the times I look to add (average up) into my winners Anytime I add to my winner, I keep my stop to BE. Adding to a winner will bring your BE closer, but if you are able to strategically time it, many times you can squeeze out more profits after your targets were hit Yes you will hit BE often, but keep in mind this is after my initial targets were hit and I have paid myself. In theory my trade completed, but I leave on enough to then "re-build" a whole new position again This trade from yesterday on stream shows examples of this. Not always easy to do, but when it works it pays off. Again, the key here is no additional risk for more profits

JD

23,940 просмотров • 1 год назад

The Onion Theory of Risk by Marc Andreessen: "I think the single biggest thing entrepreneurs are missing, both on fundraising and how they run their companies, is the relationship between risk and cash. The relationship between risk and raising cash, and then the relationship between risk and spending cash. So I've always been a fan of something that Andy Ratcliffe taught me years ago, which he called the onion theory of risk. Um, which basically is, you can think about a startup like on day one, um, as having every conceivable kind of risk, right? And you can basically just make a list of the risks. And so you've got, you know, founding team risk. You know, do the founders, are the founders gonna be able to work together? Do you have the right founders? You're gonna have product risk. You know, can you build a product? You'll have technical risk, right? Which is maybe you need a machine learning breakthrough or something to make it work. Are you gonna be able to do that? Um, you'll have, you know, launch risk. Will the launch go well? You'll have, you know, market acceptance risk. You'll have revenue risk. A big risk you get into in a lot of businesses that have a sales force is, can you actually sell the product for enough money to actually pay for the cost of sale? So you have the cost of sale risk. If you're a consumer product, you'll have a viral growth risk. Well, you get the thing of viral growth. And so, a startup at the very beginning is basically just this long list of risks. And then the way that I always think about running a startup is also the way I think about raising money, which is it's a process of peeling away layers of risk as you go. And so you raise seed money in order to peel away the first two or three risks. The founding team risk, the product risk, and maybe the initial launch risk. You raise the A round to peel away the next level of product risk. Maybe you peel away some recruiting risk because you get your full engineering team built. Maybe you peel away some customer risk because you get your first five beta customers. And so basically the way to think about it is you're peeling away risk as you go. You're peeling away risk by achieving milestones. And then as you achieve milestones, you're both making progress in your business, and you're justifying raising more capital. And so you come in, and you pitch somebody like us, and you say you're raising a B round. The best way to do that with us is you say, okay, I raised a seed round, I achieved these milestones, I eliminated these risks. I raised the A round, I achieved these milestones, and I eliminated these risks. Now I'm gonna raise a B round. Here are my milestones, here are my risks. And then by the time I go to raise a seed round, here's the state that I'll be in. And then you calibrate the amount of money that you raise to spend to the risks that you're pulling out of the business. And I go through all this, in a sense this sounds kind of obvious, but I go through all this because it's a systematic way to think about how the money gets raised and deployed. As compared to so much of what's happening, especially these days, which is just, my God, let me go raise as much money as I can. Let me go build the fancy offices, let me go hire as many people as I can, and just kind of hope for the best."

The Onion Theory of Risk by Marc Andreessen: "I think the single biggest thing entrepreneurs are missing, both on fundraising and how they run their companies, is the relationship between risk and cash. The relationship between risk and raising cash, and then the relationship between risk and spending cash. So I've always been a fan of something that Andy Ratcliffe taught me years ago, which he called the onion theory of risk. Um, which basically is, you can think about a startup like on day one, um, as having every conceivable kind of risk, right? And you can basically just make a list of the risks. And so you've got, you know, founding team risk. You know, do the founders, are the founders gonna be able to work together? Do you have the right founders? You're gonna have product risk. You know, can you build a product? You'll have technical risk, right? Which is maybe you need a machine learning breakthrough or something to make it work. Are you gonna be able to do that? Um, you'll have, you know, launch risk. Will the launch go well? You'll have, you know, market acceptance risk. You'll have revenue risk. A big risk you get into in a lot of businesses that have a sales force is, can you actually sell the product for enough money to actually pay for the cost of sale? So you have the cost of sale risk. If you're a consumer product, you'll have a viral growth risk. Well, you get the thing of viral growth. And so, a startup at the very beginning is basically just this long list of risks. And then the way that I always think about running a startup is also the way I think about raising money, which is it's a process of peeling away layers of risk as you go. And so you raise seed money in order to peel away the first two or three risks. The founding team risk, the product risk, and maybe the initial launch risk. You raise the A round to peel away the next level of product risk. Maybe you peel away some recruiting risk because you get your full engineering team built. Maybe you peel away some customer risk because you get your first five beta customers. And so basically the way to think about it is you're peeling away risk as you go. You're peeling away risk by achieving milestones. And then as you achieve milestones, you're both making progress in your business, and you're justifying raising more capital. And so you come in, and you pitch somebody like us, and you say you're raising a B round. The best way to do that with us is you say, okay, I raised a seed round, I achieved these milestones, I eliminated these risks. I raised the A round, I achieved these milestones, and I eliminated these risks. Now I'm gonna raise a B round. Here are my milestones, here are my risks. And then by the time I go to raise a seed round, here's the state that I'll be in. And then you calibrate the amount of money that you raise to spend to the risks that you're pulling out of the business. And I go through all this, in a sense this sounds kind of obvious, but I go through all this because it's a systematic way to think about how the money gets raised and deployed. As compared to so much of what's happening, especially these days, which is just, my God, let me go raise as much money as I can. Let me go build the fancy offices, let me go hire as many people as I can, and just kind of hope for the best."

Founder Mode

106,909 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

The market's been on fire the past couple days... But here's the truth: This is EXACTLY when most beginners blow up their accounts. Let us explain why: — When the market rallies hard off the bottom, and then everyone gets bullish (kinda like right now), beginning traders who don't have any exposure on FOMO into moves. Next thing you know, the market pulls back to test bulls' conviction, and everybody who chased is now down big... — The difference between these beginner traders and those who actually make a living trading is this: It's their ability to wait for HIGH PROBABILITY setups with CLEAR risk management. So before you go to buy anything over the next couple of days (and for the foreseeable future), ask yourself these questions: → Is the market truly healthy, or just bouncing? → Is this stock showing multiple edges? (RS phase, high volume, etc) → Can I identify a specific setup? (Base breakout, gapper, launch pad) → Is there a tight, logical stop loss? And more importantly, if you're really feeling FOMO right now, ask yourself: "If I could only take ONE trade this month, would it be this one?" This mental trick forces you to be selective and disciplined. Trading less = Trading better.

The market's been on fire the past couple days... But here's the truth: This is EXACTLY when most beginners blow up their accounts. Let us explain why: — When the market rallies hard off the bottom, and then everyone gets bullish (kinda like right now), beginning traders who don't have any exposure on FOMO into moves. Next thing you know, the market pulls back to test bulls' conviction, and everybody who chased is now down big... — The difference between these beginner traders and those who actually make a living trading is this: It's their ability to wait for HIGH PROBABILITY setups with CLEAR risk management. So before you go to buy anything over the next couple of days (and for the foreseeable future), ask yourself these questions: → Is the market truly healthy, or just bouncing? → Is this stock showing multiple edges? (RS phase, high volume, etc) → Can I identify a specific setup? (Base breakout, gapper, launch pad) → Is there a tight, logical stop loss? And more importantly, if you're really feeling FOMO right now, ask yourself: "If I could only take ONE trade this month, would it be this one?" This mental trick forces you to be selective and disciplined. Trading less = Trading better.

TraderLion

20,256 просмотров • 1 год назад