Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Swing Trading Toronto Stock Exchange Listed Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Vitalsigns who wrote (2241)	11/3/2001 12:51:30 PM
From: StockPro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2773

VS, I support the proposed rule change - good idea! However, in defence of CD, the originator of the "eliminate those 10% kickouts" comment ... I'm pretty sure he did not mean "eliminate the rule" but rather prevent the kickouts from happening via more judicious trading. edit: Upon further reflection it occurs to me that this proposed rule change if implemented could have the opposite effect to your desired result. You talked about the tendency toward day-trading as opposed to swing trading. This rule change could reinforce that tendency. e.g. I enter three trades on Monday and they start going against me. Under the current rules, if I see something that else that has "momo now" that I want to switch into, I have to close my 3 previous trades. But under the proposed rule change, I could carry those 3 losers "hoping for the retrace" and enter 3 new trades trades the next day. Now, should those 3 new trades become losers as well, the new rules would let me carry a total of 6 losing trades while "hoping for the retrace" and continue on to enter yet another 3 new trades. For those with daytrading tendencies (including me), the proposed rule change would allow us to carry an unlimited number of losing trades while hopping from stock to stock. So, upon further reflection, I'm not sure I do support the change in rules. Let's hear what others have to say.

To: Vitalsigns who wrote (2241)	11/3/2001 12:56:57 PM
From: Canuck Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2773

3 trades is fine with me. I'm trying to keep it simple. One or two one week plays, and only one 2-3 day hold. I also have a self imposed rule that any trade must be held for at least one night unless some force majeure dictates otherwise. My comment on the cutting down on the kick outs is of course at once useless, and at the same time crucial. 5%, 10%, 20%, it's just a number. As traders, we have to get out somewhere and make the total losses add up to less than the gains. CD

To: Vitalsigns who wrote (2241)	11/3/2001 1:31:06 PM
From: Al Collard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2773

"Next step is to eliminate those 10% kick outs." LOL...I wasn't proposing for you to eliminate the 10% kick out rule Vital's, but for us as traders not to let a stock get to the 10% loss point. I agree with you, one wouldn't survive in the real world taking 10% haircuts very often. How about keeping the # of trade rules the same but letting participants put in stop loss points at the time of their buy or short. That should eliminate some of the horrendous losses occurred on the thread. JMO Keep up the good work Vital's. Your thread is a definite asset to the SI community and one of the best. Regards, Al