u/Environmental-Ask605

The end goal is picking the right stocks to trade after having to systematize your risk management per se.

i) One of the more obvious ways to choose stocks based on your risk profile is to screen for your comfortable price ranges:

If we take a constant loss in absolute terms and not percent changes, say 6 units, a 300-priced stock will have much more breathing room than a 1000-priced stock; it's as simple as that.

ii) Another more interesting one is ATR-based. Have seen this in several pages, but this one described it quite well. Essentially:

Place stops at a multiple of ATR beyond entry.

Long stop = Entry − (N × ATR)
Short stop = Entry + (N × ATR)

Typical N: 1.5× to 2× for day trading, 2× to 3× for swing.

---x---

Combining the above two sorts of filters, we can head to TradingView's screener and screen stocks. For example, say you have 300 for day trading and are willing to risk 2% per trade, which is 6/trade:

(i) Assuming without leverage, price <= 300.

(ii) Taking N=2, N x ATR = max loss = 6; ATR = 6/2 = 3. Thus ATR <= 3.

---x---

Note that you may have to combine it with other filters. I usually go with Rel Vol > 3 & VWAP > price or VWAP < price, depending on the market. That gives me good liquidity and volatility.

This is how I more or less do pick stocks for short-term trades. Any comments or roasts are welcome :_)

I've been exploring this concept of stock picking in depth. I'm curious how you go about this from risk management or other perspectives.

I've been tracking my entries and exits on a spreadsheet.

Just a couple of trades in, so not the most diverse dataset per se.

But what I found is gap downs hurt me quite bad. In fact, my stop-loss was triggered but not executed at limit due to insane downs.

I've been thinking about what I'm missing. Like perhaps I might not be giving the right exit points. Or I am worrying too much with downs. Honestly idk.

Anyway, I try to do heavy trailing. (volatility issues; I'll better lose quick than stay flat.)

Are gap-down losses really something you stay reasonably aware of? How do you minimize it if yes?

IMO it's somewhat stock screening, which I don't seek to automate fully.

I use filters and tools to get 10–20 stocks (mostly intraday). Then I can somehow see through the movements. After filtering for RVOL, VWAP, and ATR, it's more of a gut-based decision on which to get in.

Sometimes it does fail me. But the filters, btw, already eliminate most with low volatility & liquidity.

I'm curious what it's for you. It could be vastly different than mine. Just here for more opinionated answers.

There's no surrounding pressure in space to keep the molecules intact.

The equilibrium state for matter in a vacuum is technically a gas. 

So almost everything should just sublimate, right?

I'm curious how much screen time boosts skill acquisition fastest in your experience.

Screen time includes the amount of time you spend in front of charts AND developing your system in general. I can see screen time is the most important thing. You never learn as much from others’ experiences unless you put yourself on the line.

But I’m curious beyond this point. Like, I tend to move away to do some other activities, like reading different books (unrelated to trading) or going to the gym. Does increased and increasing screen time lead to you getting better faster? Say it, particularly when you're starting out.

I've been reading a book about rocket propellants. And fuels with very low boiling points seem to work for deep-space missions, unlike ballistics or sub-atmospheres.

I can understand space is a vacuum and has 0 atmosphere. But why is it a good insulator?

Quick tip: I highly recommend you include tax + brokerage + other charges as PART of your loss. Subtract selling charges when you sell and add buying ones to all your buys. They're your only losses BEFORE you even lose.

I have jotted down the following two methods. Either way, I'll include taxes & all other brokerage charges.

1. Letting our invested amount come down 8%. In this one, my invested amount is price * shares + charges, and the stop-loss is never below 8% of this as a whole.
2. Second way. The stock price must first decrease by 8% before you can subtract all charges from this new amount. Simply put, 0.92x price - charges (irrespective of the number of shares). That is my total acceptable loss and where I wanna put my stop loss.

A few may assume, "What's the big difference between the two?" But I find such granular things are REALLY important when you notice yourself scaling.

I'm looking for which one is better in the long-term. So I'm curious if either of the above two is more optimal in the long term. Else, if you have a better RM strategy, I would love to hear it.

I have a theory:

I think there is some fear of missing out on pornographic pleasure inside everyone. This fear perhaps pushes you to get other impactful things done, apparently to prove yourself that you're not consumed by this fear. Talking mostly about other good things in life, like professionally, health-related, etc. So, by this measure, being pornfree increases your desire to get things done (quickly) in other areas of life.

Keeping this question open-ended. So really looking for highly opinionated answers. Or to roast my theory.

IMO, the main reason one should have a productivity routine to get you closer to your goals.

I've been following two and sometimes more goals every day. I make sure to not think about anything apart from the main one while actually working on something. I plan to continue doing this—work serially on multiple things each day but focus on only one while putting in work—for the rest of my life*. I'm curious if there's evidence on whether this approach is good (or bad).

At the moment, as a whole, I kind of hate the fact that routines as a thing even exist. I mean, if I have a goal, I should just get it done by hook or crook. Not wait around a decade struggling, more often than not, without proper direction.

This is what I think motivates me at the core to pursue MULTIPLE goals at once. Or at least serially. Because I'm uncertain which one will lead me closer to that specific goal. I am curious about your thoughts on this notion, as well as the original question.

Please don't get me wrong. I honestly love to use my mind for discipline; I just hate lack of direction.

*btw mods, mere '—' doesn't mean I used AI. my post was removed several times :_(

Perhaps more of an off-beat question. But I've been chatting with Claude to understand my trading reactions better. I'm apparently still trying to refine and articulate/systemize my strategy better. Still learning.

Just to give a gist, the first point I mention below (using EMA + MACD to get a trend) is what I use before I get in position, while the second (about strong moving supports) is what I look for during my position itself.

1. I get some visual confirmations, say, by gauging trends with EMA + MACD, etc. If up, I bet up and down means down. As simple as that. Formerly, this is also a derivative of the triple screen strategy; you can explore this if you wanna.
2. Within intraday movement (or any short expiry) and in proven volatile conditions, I found that I somewhat try to look for strong moving supports. As per AI logic, what should let me differentiate in the chart between "yes, this level is holding" versus "this is just hesitation before breaking down" is typically:
   • A combination of how long price spent consolidating there and number of times price touched and bounced from that level.

Fundamentally, I might have to believe that intraday trading (particularly) is a game of volatility. I am starting to think that you make profits not out of your predictions but your reactions.

BTW, you don't need to delve too much into my strategy , but I'm curious how you USE volatility. Like what do you understand about volatility in trading that you work with (perhaps) subconsciously?

IMO, the primary reason for productivity is to get you closer to your goals.

I've been following two and sometimes more goals every day. I make sure to not think about anything other than the main one while actually working on something. I plan to continue doing this—work serially on multiple things each day but focus on only one while putting in work—for the rest of my life*. I'm curious if there's cognitive evidence on whether this approach is good (or bad).

At the moment, as a whole, I hate the fact that productivity as a thing even exists. I mean, if I have a goal, I should just get it done by hook or crook. Not wait around a decade struggling, more often than not, without proper direction.

This is what I think motivates me at the core to pursue MULTIPLE goals. Because I'm uncertain which one will lead me closer to that specific goal. Curious what you think about this notion in addition to the original question.

Please don't get me wrong. I honestly love to use my mind for work; I just hate lack of direction.

*btw mere '—' doesn't mean AI

I'm looking at ISRO's site and trying to understand some previous projects. I saw that one main objective of the NISAR mission is to have the capability to acquire fully polarimetric and interferometric data. I'm curious why a Sun synchronous orbit is the optimal way to achieve this.

I did use internet and AI here and there to self-explore. But if anyone went deep in this area, I would love a human response. It'll be helpful if you could discuss orbital mechanics, how this particular orbit status is best/better for sensor calibration, and other technical details in depth.

I started Ignition!: An informal history of liquid rocket propellants.

But it appeared quite dry and narrow-focused. IMO.

Looking for any other books I may be missing out on.

This is a more general question, unrelated to specific stocks. I’ve seen two or more small caps that have existed for like 10-15 years. But still in the small-cap segment. Despite good EPS growth, many stocks somehow retain or perhaps value their tight revenue control/growth.

I am starting to think that such small-caps tend to get led by the overall market index. Essentially, retaining independence while having long public market exposure has some price to pay. And that's submission to overall market direction. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I majorly do trading, and in here it’s best to define your stakes. But I think it’s equally important to gradually tend to your profit predictions (despite your market predictions). So I think it's best to learn the skill of making money despite market direction. In other words, somewhat like riding along with high-beta stocks in an uptrend while choosing 'some other' stocks during a bad breath.

I’m curious if you face this dilemma of whether or not to choose stocks to remain desensitized by market conditions. And how you put forth conditions to screen 'some other' stocks.

Edit. C’mon guys. Is what I wrote too ugly to understand or smthn?

What I’m trying to say is some of the small caps I saw are going as per market indices. I hate this! Because small caps should act like small caps. How do you choose small caps to avoid this?

Makes me strongly think none has strong predictive power in markets, but only high reactive power. Institutions’ impact on the market is somewhat overlooked, perhaps because of their insane capital power. I meant capital power = reactive power, I suppose, so it allows smart money to respond quickly to market changes rather than really predict anything.

Let me elaborate on what I think confirmation bias in dreams is in my words:

For example, today I had a dream about terrorists. A moment before I was shooting one terrorist, I imagined how it would seem if I thought back to this moment in the future (I felt like I was feeling proud of my achievement before I ever did anything, and it was weird).

It appeared like a classic case of confirmation bias because my dream flow was not natural and my brain was plotting more than it should. I shouldn’t be doing this, especially in critical situations. To be precise, in this case, it disallowed me from taking immediate action.

If anyone relates, I'm curious how you deal with this.

Tried screening stocks based on O'Neil's CANSLIM approach in his book. It seemed like the perfect system until I realized I see new stocks each and every day I run the query.

https://preview.redd.it/b12yu561sxxg1.png?width=1424&format=png&auto=webp&s=93c5608a75f90edebbeac6162db823dad7304483