2% or not 2%

This is a discussion on 2% or not 2% within the Trading Systems forums, part of the Methods category; We should all know the 2% rule. Devised by Dr Alex Elder. Says capital risked per trade should be not ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 30, 2016, 4:28pm   #1
Joined Feb 2002
2% or not 2%

We should all know the 2% rule. Devised by Dr Alex Elder. Says capital risked per trade should be not more than 2% of your total account.

I have followed this rule and quoted it here and elsewhere. My own current trades are running at about 3% risk on average - I'm not a novice but still conservative and still trying to respect the rule. But we shouldn't give unquestioning faith to any rule in trading.

First off, this rule first appeared in print no less than 23 years ago in "Trading for a Living", by Dr Elder. His name started to become known in the late 80's. His trading obviously pre-dates the launch of his website in 1988. That passage of time on its own should qualify for this to be re-visited.

Dr Elder is a psychiatrist who trades. Nothing wrong with that, but he is bound to bring a psychological viewpoint to his writings. It's therefore very possible that the major benefits of following his teachings are protection from negative psychological impact, rather than wealth generation.

Dr Elder's knowledge and experience in trading are derived from the US private trader's viewpoint. This is not necessarily going to be universally reflected by traders' conditions in other countries.

His experience pre-dates the huge increase in private trading in the late 1990's. I don't say good trading rules should have come out of the frenzied daytrading of the tech bubble, those were atypical market conditions, but some things in the game have changed since then.

His experience was (I think) derived from going long on US stocks in the late stages of a decades-long bull stock market and US economic expansion. As far as the markets were concerned then, I'm sure the feeling was this was never going to end. But being a long-only one-country share-buyer probably doesn't count as trading as we now understand it. How relevant is buying shares in a bull market to trading both ways on the huge variety of other instruments we can now access?

Sorry if I've taken a swing at your personal guru, but I suspect those of us who know the rule also break it every trade. Don't you?
tomorton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2016, 5:16pm   #2
 
cbrads's Avatar
Joined Mar 2014
I think his books are aimed at the novice trader and once you gain experience you'll do your own thing regardless of what any guru tells you in their 'new book'. He's just setting out a prescriptive money and risk management strategy for the neophyte and 2% isn't a bad starting point regardless of instrument or T/F IMHO
__________________
"Well, what d'ya know? Here I am talking with some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice..." Lt. Columbo
cbrads is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2016, 5:43pm   #3
 
sminicooper's Avatar
Joined Jun 2016
Interesting comments with which I empathise. The 2% rule is okay if you have a large amount of capital – in which case your 2% would probably be much less. The problem arises for the average starter trader who I suspect has considerably less capital. In this situation the only way to trade your way to substantially increased capital within a reasonable timescale, is to risk considerably more than 2%. So what should you do? My suggestion (and what I am currently doing as an experiment over and above my risk-conventional trading) is to find a trading methodology which has a high probability of success and use that in conjunction with stakes higher than the 2% rule.

I tried this in paper format over about 6 months to ensure the viability of the methodology and have just completed the 1st 5 weeks of trading for real. With 11 wins and 2 losers this has been considerably more successful than I expected with approximately 40% gain. Now of course, we are on a good trending upmarket on the S&P 500 and my situation may well be just a lucky snapshot, but I do believe nevertheless that because my basic methodology is simple (just find a good uptrending stock that appears to be stuck in an upwards rut and jump on board, and get out when you've got some profit) there may be some merit. Before I started I would have been pleased to make 10% per month which with compounding could soon turn your capital in to a respectable amount. E.G. you could turn £1500 into almost 5000 in a year if you can make 10% per month.

Anyway, those are my thoughts and they reinforce my contention that a simple, basic and sound system is probably more important than all the fancy brain- hurting equations and systems that are sometimes purported to be the only way to profitability.

PS. I should add that one of the significant advantages of trading a small capital amount is that you can't actually lose very much (Guaranteed stops are very useful, and if as is sensible, you are only using money that you can afford to lose) there is little psychological pressure. E.G. Trading an SB of 0.24 points on the SP 500 might typically give you a loss of £20-£30 at some stage of the trade; if you are trading higher stakes would you be psychologically able to handle a temporary loss of say £400 without bottling out? Once the psychological pressures start building, things can change considerably.

Last edited by sminicooper; Jul 30, 2016 at 6:31pm.
sminicooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks! The following members like this post: tomorton , Greenlight
Old Jul 31, 2016, 12:14am   #4
Joined Nov 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomorton View Post
We should all know the 2% rule. Devised by Dr Alex Elder. Says capital risked per trade should be not more than 2% of your total account.

I have followed this rule and quoted it here and elsewhere. My own current trades are running at about 3% risk on average - I'm not a novice but still conservative and still trying to respect the rule. But we shouldn't give unquestioning faith to any rule in trading.

First off, this rule first appeared in print no less than 23 years ago in "Trading for a Living", by Dr Elder. His name started to become known in the late 80's. His trading obviously pre-dates the launch of his website in 1988. That passage of time on its own should qualify for this to be re-visited.

Dr Elder is a psychiatrist who trades. Nothing wrong with that, but he is bound to bring a psychological viewpoint to his writings. It's therefore very possible that the major benefits of following his teachings are protection from negative psychological impact, rather than wealth generation.

Dr Elder's knowledge and experience in trading are derived from the US private trader's viewpoint. This is not necessarily going to be universally reflected by traders' conditions in other countries.

His experience pre-dates the huge increase in private trading in the late 1990's. I don't say good trading rules should have come out of the frenzied daytrading of the tech bubble, those were atypical market conditions, but some things in the game have changed since then.

His experience was (I think) derived from going long on US stocks in the late stages of a decades-long bull stock market and US economic expansion. As far as the markets were concerned then, I'm sure the feeling was this was never going to end. But being a long-only one-country share-buyer probably doesn't count as trading as we now understand it. How relevant is buying shares in a bull market to trading both ways on the huge variety of other instruments we can now access?

Sorry if I've taken a swing at your personal guru, but I suspect those of us who know the rule also break it every trade. Don't you?

Read his books many years back. Not bad, certainly entertaining. Effective? I doubt about that.

The -1-2-3% rule ? Pure BS in my view. That is what is killing 90% of traders.
Fugazsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks! The following members like this post: Oscar Reed
Old Jul 31, 2016, 7:28am   #5
 
Pat494's Avatar
Joined Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugazsy View Post
Read his books many years back. Not bad, certainly entertaining. Effective? I doubt about that.

The -1-2-3% rule ? Pure BS in my view. That is what is killing 90% of traders.
Why do you say that ?
__________________
Love your own area.
Long live NIMBYISM

for quality of life.

The Westcountry is being overrun with
grotty new estates
Pat494 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 31, 2016, 7:37am   #6
NVP
 
NVP's Avatar
Joined Jun 2004
1-2% is a decent starting point for inexperienced traders that will be losing their shirt anyway first few years .........at least they stay in game for longer ..........

I still tend to stick to it per trade..........just habit I guess.......overloading % capital into a market position based on ones own (subjective) abilities and expectations of outcome can be a very foolish game in the long term .........

N
NVP is offline Coach/Trainer   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 31, 2016, 7:38am   #7
NVP
 
NVP's Avatar
Joined Jun 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugazsy View Post
Read his books many years back. Not bad, certainly entertaining. Effective? I doubt about that.

The -1-2-3% rule ? Pure BS in my view. That is what is killing 90% of traders.
whats killing 90%+ of traders is that they are Cr*p traders .....the % capital applied just decides the cull rate

N
NVP is offline Coach/Trainer   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 31, 2016, 7:58am   #8
 
swissy's Avatar
Joined Jul 2008
Some good posts here, I have learnt the hard way (who hasn't) about mm. Personally I only hold a fraction (5%) of my trading funds in the broker account and hence regularly risk more than 2% of that account on trades to get a decent return on that. With my system I have entry and exit zones scaling in and out, once it gets outside the zone and the trade is wrong I will cut it, also if price spikes massively for some reason and you get a margin call you never take the call - that's a line in the sand. You take the hit and move on therefore only ever risking 5% of your total trading capital ever in the relatively rare circumstances where price gaps massively (I use stops but not guaranteed, not worth the extra cost in my opinion).
Everyone has to sort a mm system for themselves that does not psych them out trading but delivers profits and manages losses in a sustainable way imho.
swissy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 31, 2016, 9:50am   #9
 
barjon's Avatar
Joined May 2003
In some shape or form you must control losses and be able to stand an extended run of losses without fatal damage to your account (losing 50% of your account means you have to gain 100% with what remains just to get back to where you started).

2% is as good a rule of thumb as any.
barjon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 31, 2016, 10:37am   #10
Joined Nov 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat494 View Post
Why do you say that ?
I will try my best to explain...

The traditional literature idea of risking 2% per trade placing an hard stop close to the market hoping a better 1:2 or better is an false information/education.

Market does not have to do anything and with an hard stop you can be right and lose money and the 2% is gone which will be adding to the 4 % already lost and you find your moods under your feet, here you will start to look for the holy grail or next guru (where is Tar?) because what ever you do it will not work...does it sound familiar?

Trades needs space to breath despite any length of knowledge of TA a trader has attained, if we do not give that space our trading will be under strain, it will not be flawless, which is an essential part in moving a step above in the trading arena.

Hoping to gain with consistency a greater RR with every trade is also part of that distorted literature, again market can do anything from the moment we take the trade and the response can be various and the 2% set of our risk can influence us when we are taken profit if it ever goes to positive.

The solution?

The solution can be various, for example I can risk 1/10 of that 2% per trade and trade numerous instruments and not have any hard stop at all and martingale at the next resistances levels if my initial trade was a short and so on... or set a limit of risk when to get out if continues in the wrong direction.... I can be wrong and make money, often is best to be wrong first...

It does not matter what a trade does I can make money either way, my % of winning trades is high, yes my losing trades are larger but few...

If I do not martingale I can hedge on a bigger time frame and liquidate when and if my initial trade goes back into positive, I will have numerous account and I do not care if a few accounts will pulverise because I making it up in my other accounts.

A trader needs to create a method based on his own risk tolerance.

Last edited by Fugazsy; Jul 31, 2016 at 10:44am.
Fugazsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 31, 2016, 10:45am   #11
tar
 
tar's Avatar
Joined Nov 2006
It depends if you are swing trading or scalping , risking more than 2% in scalping may kill you , at the end it is just a rule of thumb , surely you may risk more than 2% .
tar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 31, 2016, 10:58am   #12
Joined Nov 2014
Other factor traders should be aware of is try to understand where pending orders are sitting, here traders are taken profits and others are waiting to get in, waiting for a confirmation can be too late, the time it is confirmed many have already taken profits....
Fugazsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 31, 2016, 11:02am   #13
Joined Nov 2014
a trader needs always to take in consideration market conditions, using a martingale module in a trending market is not such a great idea but in a range market which are 70% of the time is not bad at all.
Fugazsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks! The following members like this post: wallstreetwarrior87
Old Jul 31, 2016, 11:25am   #14
Joined Oct 2009
Also, remember risking (say 2%) doesn't mean losing (2%) when factoring in losing trades when forward projecting a sequence of results, or indeed analysing past results. (ie we don't just let stops be hit for the sake of losing)

2% is just the "initial risk", and this all changes once we are in the trade based on price movement/order flow.

Bottom line - just because the trade doesn't work out - the result does not have to mean a loss of 2%

So 5 losers in a row should not mean -10%, if it does then you are not trading price/time, you are just a sitting duck.

Problem is that most literature written by academics is too black/white, left/right. Real trading/real life is not like this, only experience will make this become clear.
wallstreetwarrior87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 31, 2016, 11:42am   #15
Joined Feb 2002
tomorton started this thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by tar View Post
It depends if you are swing trading or scalping , risking more than 2% in scalping may kill you , at the end it is just a rule of thumb , surely you may risk more than 2% .

Well that's one of my points on Elder's rule - he surely didn't mean daytraders should take 2% risk per trade.
tomorton is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)