Skip to main content
Track Scale-out position reduction
9 / 18
Search the archiveLibrary
Library

2011issue C1045

First-target review: scale out or flatten

After the same rule-based entry, the first profit objective is a scheduled review of leftover risk. Flatten the whole position there, or keep a remainder only when a later objective and a trailing stop are already named.

  • Full-exit and scale-out are two procedures after the same rule-based-entry: close everything at the first pre-entry objective, or reduce size there and leave a stated remainder under a later plan.
  • Editorial view: treat that first objective as a first-target-review of leftover risk, and allow a remainder only when a second objective and a trailing-stop at or above the first objective are already named.
  • The archive reply says scale-out has no single correct or incorrect rule, and that newer traders who are already in a position and unsure should use the half-size-default rather than take no action.
  • The reply says not to confine a still-favored open trade to the original objective, and not to stay in a deteriorating trade when a later re-entry might be available. Scale-in remains a separate decision.
Entries in this reading3 entries
Current trackScale-out position reduction22 readingsTrailing stop122 readingsRule-based entry292 readings

The same entry, two exit procedures

The archive contrasts two ways to leave a trade after the same kind of rule-based-entry. A full-exit closes the entire position when the first pre-entry profit objective is reached. A scale-out closes part of the open position at that first objective and leaves a stated remainder under a later plan.

Both procedures start from the same entry conditions so the later exit variants can be compared as one procedure.

What the comparisons held fixed

One comparison held a 50 percent win rate, a nine-point objective, and a three-point initial stop fixed. The only change was whether winners were closed in full or reduced at half the objective.

A second comparison gave both sides the same six-contract entry and the same first objective. One side used a full-exit of all six contracts there. The other side exited four contracts and kept two under a new objective, with a trailing-stop at or above the first objective.

The posted rule and the reply

The posted analysis says to close the entire position at the first objective unless the trader can recognize a post-entry change and manage leftover size toward a second objective.

The reply states that scaling out of a position has no single correct or incorrect rule.

The reply tells newer traders that when already in a position and unsure, the half-size-default is preferable to taking no action. That fallback applies to both losing and winning trades.

The reply also says not to confine an open trade to a predetermined profit objective when conditions still favor it, and not to remain in a deteriorating trade when a later re-entry might be available.

Scaling into a position is treated as a separate decision from scale-out. The reply still declines to call typical scale-in use simply wrong.

When leftover size may stay open

Editorial view: a first-target-review can keep a remainder only if the later plan is already complete. That plan names the second objective and places a trailing-stop so leftover size has a bounded exit if the later objective fails.

The archive workflow therefore does not treat scale-out as an automatic improvement on a full-exit, and it does not treat a full-exit as the only valid close. The named remainder plan is what makes leftover risk reviewable.

Educational research material, not investment advice. Historical source context does not establish present-day performance.
9 of 18 in the Scale-out position reduction track
201281-82 pp.Next on Scale-out position reductionTiny scale-out as a systems decision testUnder a losing position, hope can capture the stay-or-exit choice and justify remaining instead of retesting the original rule.
All readings on this track · 18 readings
  1. 1989One add option sizing with a scale-out and a trail
  2. 1991Precommit scale-outs and puts to replace impulse
  3. 1991A written game plan for checklist, scale-out and staggered stops
  4. 2004Name the stop, require a 1:3 reward, then scale out half
  5. 2005Why pre-target scale-outs lower expected value
  6. 2008Preplanned butterfly exits with stops and scale-outs
  7. 2010Qualified trend, volume breaks, and a staged scale-out
  8. 2011Gated entry and scale-out after a climactic selloff
  9. 2011First-target review: scale out or flatten
  10. 2012Tiny scale-out as a systems decision test
  11. 2014Written size and exit scripts for scaling and risk
  12. 2017Constructing livable scale-out exit rules
  13. 2017Why the simpler looking system is harder to run
  14. 2018Prewritten scale-out and exponential moving-average exit procedure
  15. 2019A dual-career swing procedure that must output entry, scale-out, or abstention
  16. 2019A same-session opening-range breakout with a whole-number stop and scale-out
  17. 2019Grade the first seasonal long-put gain as a maintenance exam
  18. 2019Failed candlestick fades with breakout permission and scale-out
By fieldEntry and exit rules327 readingsBy year2011131 readings
All 22 readings tagged Scale-out position reduction
Also on Scale-out position reduction5 readings
1989One add option sizing with a scale-out and a trail2017Constructing livable scale-out exit rules2011Gated entry and scale-out after a climactic selloff1989Shorter series need fewer recovery hits and raise scale-in cash1991A written game plan for checklist, scale-out and staggered stops