[TheNegotiator]

So convention tells us to aim for the ultimate goal of being able to cut your losing trades quickly and run your winners. Psychologists will attempt to explain this by saying we have a aversion for loss. But is the convention right anyway? Of course, I'm not saying that we shouldn't aim to attempt to minimise losses and maximise profits. But if you have a plan and an overall risk structure, think about exactly what the risk:reward ratio is at the POINT OF EXIT. Now of course you must have the sense to not let a loser run away out of control, but if your stop is say 10 ticks, which is close to being hit, what is the harm in giving it an extra couple if you see something which is solid technically that convinces you it's worthwhile doing? If you were in this position, you would be risking an extra couple of ticks on 10 to scratch or even make some sort of profit. Relative to the trade before entry it's not even a big deal. Think about the other side of this. If you are say 18 ticks up on a trade but your plan is for 20 or even that your technical exit is just 2 ticks away, what are you risking by giving that trade extra room? Unless you trade a really slow product, you are unlikely to be able to effectively trail a stop by less than say 5 ticks, so even then your risk:reward is skewed against you. One of the trading adages you'll hear people say is "don't be a dick for a tick". Well there is a reason why people say that. Because risk:reward is skewed against you as you get close to your target.

So what do you guys think? Is this a bit of a catch 22 or is one side of this argument correct? It would be good to hear from the scalers of the trading world what their take is on this.