talked to a guy who's been trading 23 years and manages $40M asked him what separates traders who survive from traders who blow up his answer surprised me it wasn't strategy. it wasn't discipline. it wasn't psychology. "bet sizing. that's it. that's the whole game." here's what he explained: THE THESIS: "I've seen hundreds of traders come through. good ones. smart ones. talented ones." "90% of the ones who blew up didn't blow up from bad trades. they blew up from bad sizing on normal trades." "a 1R loss at proper size is nothing. a 1R loss at 10x proper size is account death." THE EXAMPLES: he walked me through case studies: TRADER A: - excellent strategy, 58% WR - consistently profitable for 2 years - had a "high conviction" trade - sized up 5x normal position - trade lost - drawdown was 23% instead of 5% - psychology cracked - revenge traded the next week - blew the account in 8 days "he didn't blow up from a bad trade. he blew up from a big trade." TRADER B: - mediocre strategy, 51% WR - survived for 11 years - never sized above 0.8% per trade - took the same size on every trade - no "high conviction" sizing - compounded slowly but never blew up "he's worth $4M now. started with $50k. just never killed himself with size." THE RULE: "every trader who blows up violates the same rule" "they size based on CONVICTION instead of MATH" "'this one feels right' so they go bigger" "'I'm on a winning streak' so they go bigger" "'I need to make it back' so they go bigger" "conviction is how you justify stupid sizing" THE DATA: he showed me internal research: traders who sized based on conviction: - average survival time: 2.4 years - account explosion rate: 74% traders who sized mathematically (same size every trade): - average survival time: 8.3 years - account explosion rate: 12% "it's not even close. variable sizing kills traders." THE MATH: he broke down why "high conviction" sizing is stupid: "let's say you're 60% accurate on normal trades" "let's say you're 70% accurate on 'high conviction' trades" "sounds good right? go bigger on the 70% trades?" "wrong. here's why:" "at 60% accuracy with 1% risk, a 4-loss streak costs you 4%" "at 70% accuracy with 5% risk, a 4-loss streak costs you 20%" "and 4-loss streaks happen even at 70% accuracy" "you FEEL more confident but the math doesn't justify the size increase" THE SOLUTION: "how do you size then?" "same size every trade. no exceptions." "what about when you're really confident?" "same size. confidence isn't accuracy." "what about when the setup is perfect?" "same size. perfect setups lose 40% of the time." "what about when you're on a winning streak?" "same size. streaks end." "every trade gets the same respect. the 'boring' ones and the 'perfect' ones." THE IMPLEMENTATION: his rules for position sizing: 1. calculate your base risk (0.5-2% depending on account size and edge) 2. that's your risk on EVERY trade 3. never size up. ever. 4. if you want more money, scale accounts/capital. don't scale risk. "I've been trading 23 years. I've never taken a trade above 2% risk. not once." "my biggest winners and my 'meh' trades got the same size" "I'm not trying to hit home runs. I'm trying to not strike out." THE TRUTH: retail traders think they need big trades to make big money professionals know big trades make big losses the traders managing real money all size conservatively they make money through VOLUME of good trades not SIZE of individual trades if you're varying your position size based on "conviction": you're already on the path to blowing up it's just a matter of when same size every trade no exceptions that's how you survive

met an ex-institutional trader when I was in Switzerland, clearing $300K/month trading his own capital made me feel broke af he was legit emotionless zero reaction to anything showed me his accounts mid-drawdown like he was checking the weather takes his trades like a fucking machine he taught me something that changed everything about how I trade: we were looking at the charts and I told him I blew a $50K prop account on a strategy that stopped working. I was analyzing what went wrong with the system he fucking laughed at me and said: "You're confused why your strategy failed? The strategy is irrelevant. But understanding what the MARKET conditions are....You think banks have 1 strategy they run all year long?" then he entered a trade without even looking stressed that hit me different you mfs are too attached to strategies. you're "backtesting" systems. you're "optimizing" indicators. you're "tweaking" entry rules. complaining about how the market is bad. not realizing markets always move the same. in cycles. meanwhile killers just read what the market is actually doing. how it behaves. they know how to READ the market. then build whatever strategy fits that. they aren't worried about a "strategy" because they have multiple. old me would've been questioning my entire approach. analyzing the strategy for weeks. probably would've switched to something completely different new me looked at what the MARKET was doing during those losses. saw volume wasn't there. my strategy needs volume. market changed. I adapted. your attachment to one strategy is making you easy to liquidate learn to read the market or stay broke Here's what that mf taught me: strategies are just tools market movement is the truth If you can read what the market is ACTUALLY doing: trending ranging high volatility low volatility seek and destroy directional then you can build ANY strategy around it most mfs do it backwards: they find a strategy (ICT, SMC, whatever) then try to force it on every market condition then blow up when the market changes you think institutions have one strategy? killers do it different they read the market FIRST see it's ranging? build a range strategy see it's trending? build a trend strategy see it's choppy? don't fucking trade the strategy adapts to the market not the other way around you should run multiple completely different strategies depending on what the market is doing same trader different strategies all based on reading market STATE first meanwhile you're trying to make ONE strategy work in ALL conditions that's why you're broke I watched him switch strategies mid-week Monday-Tuesday: market trending, he's trading breakouts Wednesday: volatility dies, he completely stops Thursday-Friday: range forms, he's fading extremes zero attachment to any method pure adaptation to market movement meanwhile you're still trying to make your "strategy" work your problem isn't your strategy It's that you can't read what the market is doing learn to ADAPT to the market first build strategies second or keep doing it backwards and stay broke