Decide your stop-loss by amount not by price: Practice cutting with broken conditions

As soon as there is a paper loss, aren’t you looking at the account number before the chart? What can you do to ensure the exit point doesn’t waver?

If you look at the numbers first, you end up judging by the day’s balance.

Even though the exit point isn’t moving, the reasons for not cutting keep piling up, right?

Good evening!

This is Masashi^^

In the past, I would close the loss area and go look at another leg.

When I came back, I had lowered the stop-loss level... lol

Stop-loss is not a record of failure, but an acknowledgment that an assumption has expired.

❌ The more you look at the amount, the more your exit point moves

When you see the loss number, your feelings tend to be stronger than the initial plan.

The exit point moves not by the market but by your wallet.

The tricky part is that the person who moved it tends to see it as a form of adjustment.

As you widen it little by little, it becomes something different from your initial assumption.

By the time you notice, you may not even remember why you got in (;'∀')

Here is one common misunderstanding I’ll note.

When you feel you’re bad at stop-loss, is the really hard part the exit?

Often this means you’re in a situation where you can’t decide where to exit, not that you can’t exit.

It’s not that you can’t cut, but you hold on without deciding.

The problem lies on the entry side.

If you can’t place a stop-loss before entering, you won’t be able to place one after entering.

? What to do today: Count the number of times you moved your decided stop-loss this week only.

? I once kept moving the exit point and blew my account

I’ll be honest.

This is where I paid the highest tuition.

When I first moved it, the amount was only a little.

If I could get back a little more, I thought I could be saved, so I moved the decided point downward.

That round came back and I was saved.

The problem started from there.

Once it goes well once, it becomes easier to move it next time without hesitation.

After several times, there came a moment where it didn’t return.

With one stop-loss, tens of times before disappeared.

⚠ The painful thing wasn’t the amount.

It was that, just once, I didn’t use the standard I had set for myself.

? ✔ Write the exit point before entering in one line. The real instruction is [If the previous low is broken and it doesn’t come back, cut].

✅ If the conditions break, don’t wait for the result

Stop-loss is not an operation that confirms a loss.

It is an action to keep your next decision when you realize your hypothesis was wrong.

If you can separate this, you’ll feel lighter right after you cut.

As long as you treat stop-loss as a failure, every cut will deny your own judgment.

No one can repeat that many times, so you’ll gradually become unable to cut.

Think concretely. Suppose in a week you entered five times, with three wins and two losses.

By the count, it’s not a bad week.

But if those two losses were from cutting due to money and not due to the condition, then the results, though both negative, leave different records.

A cut by the condition can be used next time, but a cut by amount cannot be used next time.

? What to do today: categorize this week’s losses into those cut by conditions and those cut by amount.

? Before entering, write the expired location

To what point does the expectation end?

I’ll leave just one line before the order.

Write something like this in one line.

【If you break through the higher-timeframe resistance and don’t come back, it’s over】

【If the pullback goes deeper than last time, step down】

Both are described by position, so you won’t be pulled by the size of the unrealized loss.

Conversely, the rule 【down to minus 3000 yen】 is monetary, so it isn’t a condition.

In the market, there’s no reason that three thousand yen matters.

If you enter with ambiguity, each stop-loss will add interpretation.

This time is special, so at this scene only it’s different.

As interpretations increase, your own rules become more and more complicated.

Complicated rules cannot be kept on busy days.

Rules that can’t be kept are almost the same as having none (;'∀')

That’s why I use the standard of whether you can write it in one line.

? What to do today: can you state the stop-loss condition in one line before ordering?

? Danger signal when your reasons for entering increase

If reasons that didn’t exist before entering are increasing within the unrealized loss, be careful.

Because of the indicator before the event. Because it backed at the same shape just now.

Those added reasons tend to become excuses, not confirmations.

There are common points among the added reasons.

・None can be confirmed immediately

・Therefore you can’t deny them

・They become material to continue holding

If you were in at one place and then hold until there are three, that’s the fork in the road.

What helps here is the one line you wrote before entering.

You can judge whether the added reasons are included there.

As soon as reasons that didn’t exist before entering have increased, you’re in a different trade.

⚠ What to do today: Say aloud the reasons you added while you held it, and count them.

✔ When you can cut in small pieces, the next cut is protected

A day you could treat stop-loss as an expected cost lets you calmly view the next chart.

Conversely, if you drag it on, your judgment tends to be rough until the next cut.

So you don’t cut for that trade alone.

You cut to protect the next trade!

For the next thirty minutes after cutting, I decide not to place a new order.

The one I place then usually aims to recover, as often happens (;'∀')

With thirty minutes, you can write the reason for cutting in one line.

【Cut because you broke through a wall and didn’t return】

That’s enough.

When you read it after, you can treat the next scene calmly, even if the shape is the same.

On the other hand, days you proceed without writing tend to have the second cut at the same place.

Taking time isn’t for patience.

It’s to turn the immediate prior moment into the next material.

? Documentation should be kept about broken conditions, not profit or loss

Just writing how much you lost won’t reveal where to fix next.

Which condition broke and where you cut.

Keeping this helps make the corrections concrete.

If the same condition breaks three times in a row, the fix is more on the entry than the stop-loss.

Conversely, if the condition was functioning and you still moved as expected after cutting,

that round had both entry and exit aligned. Even if negative, there’s nothing to fix about exit.

Being able to discern this reduces the urge to change your method in a losing week.

? What to do today: Start the first line of the record with the broken condition, not the monetary amount.

? Split stop-loss breakdown into three

Split a week’s stop-loss into three parts.

・Cuts due to a broken condition

・Cuts due to amount

・Cuts done for vague reasons

If the number of cuts due to the condition increases compared to last week, you’re moving forward just by that.

The trick is to look only at the breakdown, not the win rate or profit.

The week with the most vague cuts means the condition itself was ambiguous that week.

Next week, start by making the one-line you write shorter.

【Can you verify you stopped before the wall?】

If you can write this length, you won’t skip out on busy days.

If you try to write longer, some days you can’t write at all, and the record breaks.

When you count, you’ll see in which situations you let go of the condition.

In my case, two situations.

・Right after losing a bit earlier

・While in a large movement

If you know your weak spots, you don’t need to fix everything.

In those two moments, you just need to pause before placing the order.

The purpose of counting isn’t to reflect.

It’s to decide what to reinforce.

Misunderstanding this leads to records turning into mere reflections and not continuing.

Use it as material to decide where to protect next, not to blame yourself.

? What to do today: Count stop-loss entries by situation.

⭕ Position first, lot size later

Decide the lot size first, then look for the stop-loss position, because if you decide the position by monetary considerations, the position will move by amount.

So I reverse the order.

Decide the location where the assumption breaks, then set the lot size from the distance to there.

With this order, when you can only place a far exit, your lot size naturally becomes smaller.

It isn’t about placing it close just because.

Too close means you cut before it’s actually broken.

Then, after cutting, the scenarios that move as expected increase.

Next, you may stop trusting the stop-loss itself.

What matters isn’t near or far, but whether there is a reason at that location.

If there is a reason and it’s far, then reduce your lot size to absorb the distance.

If there’s no reason and it’s near, it’s just a placebo move.

Once you move it, it becomes a place you’ll move again in the future.

So don’t adjust the stop-loss magnitude to unrealized loss. Keep this stable.

⭕ What to do today: After deciding the stop-loss point, calculate the lot size you can enter at that distance.

? And how does this affect the account

I think after reading this, some may wonder.

If you cut by condition, will you start winning?

To be honest, changing how you cut alone won’t make you win.

In my case, the first change wasn’t the win rate.

The amount you lose when you lose started to line up.

When you were cutting by amount, small losses and large losses mixed together.

When you cut by condition, losses tend to be similar in size each time you lose.

As they align, you won’t be unsettled by a single loss.

? ? When the loss width aligns, you won’t have to crumble the lot on the next one.

I’ll state this not to be overly optimistic.

This doesn’t mean you’ll win more often.

It doesn’t mean fear of unrealized loss disappears.

What changes is only the shape of losses. When they align, you can talk about how to win.

? ⭕ List the widths of the last five stop losses and check if they are not varying.

? Tools shorten the time to find where it breaks

Tools do not decide where to cut for you.

If you can visually confirm the location of the higher-timeframe wall, the search time reduces.

Since the location is visible in advance, you can adjust lot sizes within that distance.

Sticking to the sequence is the most effective aspect.

Be careful not to treat the shown location as the stop-loss itself; the display is a candidate, not a place where the assumption breaks.

A tool makes the search time shorter, not the decision time.

When candidates appear, you check the state by moving back and forth yourself.

If the same conclusion appears, that cut becomes a trade you can justify.

If a different conclusion appears, note why your view differed; it will help next time.

With this method, you’ll understand in which scenarios the tool excels and where it struggles.

Once you reach that point, you won’t be swayed by the displays anymore ^^

? Summary

Practicing stop-loss looks like practicing exit, but it is also practicing entry.

If you develop the habit of deciding exit points first, you’ll see scenes where entering here would be too far away.

Previously you entered impulsively; now you see it as an unentryable place.

When this changes, the number of stop-loss actions will decrease.

There’s only one thing to do this week.

Before placing an order, write one line that shows where you expect to end.

【If you break through the wall and don’t come back, it’s over】

I’d like you to check whether you can write by location.

When you have a unrealized loss, look at the chart before the account numbers as well.

Just changing the order makes it possible to judge by condition.

If you continue for seven days, count the number of cuts by condition.

Your number of trades may decrease.

But the proportion of explainable trades should rise ^^

?See details of Golden Line Sniper AI

Thank you always for reading ^^