atto

In the Hinges thread, I posted a live trade and elaborated on my exit methodology. To keep that topic on topic and to allow us to continue investigating exits and scale-outs, I thought it would be a good idea to start a new thread. I'll cover my personal exit methodology seen though Wyckoff ideas, as well as the logical rationale behind it. That said, I welcome all feedback and supporting/opposing opinions.
 
My current trading methodology involves position adds and scale-outs. My reasoning has roots in wagering ideologies such as the Kelly criterion. The idea is simple: Bet more when you have greater odds. Relating to trading, you want the most exposure when your edge is greatest; similarly, you want less exposure when your edge is least (and ideally, no exposure when you have no edge). This makes logical sense, but many traders (myself included for a while) failed to see this.
 
Trading is a game of making money, not proving yourself correct. I disagree with the "A good exit is another entry" camp, because I can't say that my edge is always the same. Yes, if you're able to nail moves completely, then keep your all-in / all-out approach. I personally can't, and don't currently know of any trader who can.
 
Let's examine when a trading edge changes. Let's say you enter with a long setup (and many are discussed in this forum), and price moves in your direction but fails to break through a possible resistance area. Couldn't we argue that the new sellers, by confirming resistance, have taken (at least some of) your bullish edge away? This would be a good area to take some position off, because buying pressure is (momentarily) outmatched by selling pressure. I find volume especially important in these areas, because it can help you gauge the interest of the bulls and bears. Price stalled; did: a) sellers sweep in, or b) buyers simply take a break? If you see a rise of volume on the rejection, start looking for the door.
 
What if price did not stall at possible resistance? Then I see no reason to lighten the position. The buyers have been winning, and sellers didn't step in as they did before. In fact, I have position adding setups based on moves like this. Remember, price moves in waves (not bars) and is fractal. The setup you took on a 1m chart could parlay into a 5m setup. Always pay attention to the market on a greater scale.
 
My most reliable and accurate way to exit are climaxes. Here's how I define a climax:
A rise in momentium (volatility), along with:
A rise in volume
Then, a contraction of momentum / volatility (or, a rejection of price)
High volume does not mean there's a climax. In fact, some of the biggest moves are on high volume. It's the rejection / stall you're looking for. High volume gives you a head's up that there's a lot of interest. Once you spend screen time watching climaxes, you can catch them pretty quickly. Frequently, you'll see a quick decay of volume. This generally means that buying pressure has lessened, but sellers have not taken over. Many times, this is the making of a pullback before a continuation. If, however, you see volume gaining on the pullback, you might be looking at a reversal (or a pullback on a larger scale). It's not volume you're interested in directly, but volume's effect on price.
 
You'll also see times when volume does not spike before the exhaustion, but price fails to break through a support/resistance level. Many times, price will try more than once, but new buyers/sellers are simply not interested. This is another good scale out opportunity, because the lack of buying pressure is important. Price could likely continue, but our edge not as much as it was when we had buying pressure on our side.
 
So far, I've talked about exits that are pretty close to the extremes. Unfortunately, not ever price action move ends so cleanly with a climax or S/R confirmation. This is where stop management comes into play. To begin with, I use very small stops initially (so importantly, am willing to re-enter if my entry was not clean). Additionally, there's no reason to take a full stop if price is not confirming your entry premise. This is important. I am not saying to wait for the trade to be proven wrong. Rather, get out if you're not proven right. The Phantom of the Pits has some wise words on this topic.
 
So, we're in a profitable trade, and need to manage stops. My first goal is to make the trade riskless (move the stop to break even). This has many psychological and $ implications. Yes, at times, you can get shaken out for break even, and zoom!.. price shoots off. You must be willing for this to happen, and often, re-enter quickly without chasing a trade. I make the trade riskless as soon as price confirms my entry premise. This often involves a x point move, or a breaking of previous S/R. From there, I manually trail stops as price keeps breaking past S/R levels, or establishes new ones. Example: a bull run, and then congestion. I will set stops under the congestion. The more contracts you trade, the more scale-outs you can have, making your trade longer and longer (if this is wanted).
 
As a rule of thumb, the longer term the trade is, the less tight you need to keep your stops. On trend days, to catch the entire move, you will need to allow for pullbacks. In action, I'm frequently scaling out on pullbacks, and then adding to my position as the trend resumes.
 
This is a work in progress, so please feel free to add to my thoughts. My other posts on exits: Live trade exit discussion, the benefits of scaling out. A couple of you have mentioned to me that you like examples (helps solidify the concept). Please understand that this is simply one example, and does not represent the concept in entirety.