The turtle rules have been out for a while in PDF files, easily found/downloaded with a simple google search.  Also the new book,  The Complete Turtle Trader, has them too, but I found the free online download explained them more concisely and easier to follow than the book did, but the book is great read regardless; a really interesting story.  The turtle rules themselves imo are not new in that others had and have been using similar methodology for years.   As for scaling in, both the turtle and IBD methods are similar and I use sort of a mix of the  two.  I think the turtle rules for scaling in and out might work better if one trades a dozen or more instruments at once...stocks, futures, more of a pure stystematic or programmed method with little chance for discretion.  For  holding about a half dozen stocks/ETFs only,  I'm a bit heavier the IBD way, but of course it too requires very strict discipline.  

The pyramiding method for both Richard Dennis/Turtle rules and O'Neil/IBD rules have you fully loaded very early in the breakout from a base; after early buys there is no subsequent adding to the position if it trends higher (except for a pullback within certain parameters).  O'Neil has you fully loaded no higher than 5% above the breakout price.   Turtle method has you fully loaded as one adds units in 1/2 N moves (N being the avg. daily range of stock/future).  So they are very similar in that regard...and others.  O'Neil advises 1/2 position with first buy, then two more subsequent smaller buys if price appreciates.   Turtle Dennis method has each buy equal, with as few as two and as many as six, all depending on particular stock/future volatility past 20 day average.  Both methods also have strict rules to stop out early if trade goes bad,  and mainly differ on how to exit when good gains are made; O'Neil more discretion by reading charts for signals, Turtle method had simple exit of selling on new 10 day or 20 low depending on which type of turtle system was used (there are two).  This was different from intial tight stop loss before a trend developed.

Diceman, thanks for showing the example graphic, good lesson there.

Oh .. thanks.

That sound's like it might be good... what do you think of it.  I seems like it might work well for a fast trade strategy.  But the 1% stop loss thing is kinda tight.

If I wan'ted to read some of Jesse Livermores books which should I start with .. which are the best?

My text got dropped?

"The best profits will be made if you try to exit on a high." - - - - 

To be honest I have found this to NOT be the actual case.  On some really great trades I was able to get out quite near the top...and using limit orders to squibble over a few cents got me a dood deal there and then.... But over all the practice cost me more than trailing a stop under daily lows.  so each new clean up day only means I get to keep the previous bars range in proffits or part of it.  More often that methodology will keep me in a trade long enough to get out nearer the actual run top.  so long as i'm willing to give up the aparent high to find out if ther is a possible higher high coming.... often enough there is to make it worth it IMO.

 

Unless I have misconstrued the meaning of your statement.

APSLL I'm not all that cozy with the 1% thing either.. but i'm looknig for a faster metholdolgy to get all in over just buying it all out right and working a trend up.  That  is aparently a method that Jesse Livermore used.  Maybee it's antiquated or flawed but it did work for him.  

I've noticed that some of my best trades were actually chasing.  Some of my worst losses were "ideal entries".... on some level it dosent realy matter.  Not that I  would make a regular practice of chasing or not bothering about general setups.....but once the position is on I think it's not necessarily neccessary to wait for a complete new clean setup.

My best trade in AKAM went somethign like this.  Buy 300 on a springboard setup ... buy 200 2 weeks later on an engulfing white.. buy 100 on a highbase break 5 days later..held for two weeks and sold to take my proffits.  prices continued up the rest of the year where I nibbled but was afraid to get serriously long.

I know the Turtles knew fromt he point of their first entry where all their pyramids would be .... it was a function of dollalrs at risk in relatino to position size... not any "setup" as I understand.  I may be wrong there it may have been each new signal.. as I think on it that then determined sized based on where the signal fell...BUT They knew where those signals would fall for the most part... and had orders ready and waiting. (or traders able to instantly send a market ordrer). The whole point was to get on a full positon as quickly as possible with out jumping all in at once....with larger accounts this also helps you not trip over your own buying and help hide your activity some.

Diceman I may try to continue using the intra day charts but it's more difficult not being able to make that decision onthe intraday... however saying away fromteh intra day has only helped me and breaking that rule has already hurt me.  I took to quick a proffit in TEVA and TECUA deciding to move up stops on the intra day basis based on a feeling that the market had run it's run.

My other option is just to forget about pyramiding for the short term trades and leave it for a trend following methodology

Did not mean to scare you Diceman, I guess that I just do not comprehend a mathmatical or robot like aproach to trading. Although I do believe in controlling ones emotions and adhearing to certain rules and discipline.

You are right I am seeing all this stuff through my set of eyes and must give way for other points of view that are just as valid as mine.

What moves me about the book is Livermore's candid examination of his own thought process and the scientific detail with which he examined both himself and the market.  Just as the Darvas book does, Stock Operator gives a rare glimpse into the machinery of a master.

Anyone looking at this book with an eye to learning inside secrets or methods is missing the point all together.  As Mamon said, the book is about insight and psychology and belief in yourself.

I, also have read this book several times over.  There's a free .pdf copy of it on Wikipedia along with the book Livermore wrote himself "How To Trade In Stocks" which also has it's fair share of gems.

As far as Livermore scaling in or out and how he bought -- he said he arrived at his method after years of studying both himself and the market and he found a way to trade that suited his personality.  To me that is the optimal approach.  Keep hammering away at it until the light shines through and you figure out what kind of stocks you like to trade, which patterns make sense to you, how you capitalize on what you know, and how to continue improving.

David John Hall

scottnlena,

Slight side note regarding dropped text and lost posts. Here is what I try to remember to do. I typically compose my posts in Word and then paste them into the edit window. For quotes I start the post an copy the quote to Word first. 

Another advantage is my typos get flagged by Word so I post fewer of them. I can't count the times I lost a well constructed reply to some forum, this or elsewhere, only to have it disappear into the ether. It can be tough to muster the energy to repost.

-----------------------------

Just to be clear. No judgment here. I think both camps, and the middle ground as well, are occupied by successful and not as successful traders.

This is very meaty topic. For setup and entry many really want to, have got to, have really really got to participate. A truly mechanical system is just to boring or doesn't measure up to the added value they "provide". That is the juice for them. Or they are just plain better than the mechanical system.

For others, lack of discipline, confidence, or knowledge can be addressed by relying on a well conceived, well understood, this is key: understood system. Over time success or lack of it may cause a mechanical trader to become and non-mechanical traders to become more so. The feedback loop of failure works wonders toward  moving one in the proper direction, assuming your money lasts long enough.

The same argument could be applied to “mechanical” exits, whether it be cutting losses or capturing profits. Some would say they never set a solid stop loss. They evaluate each exit individually. This would be a disaster for the optimists, with thoughts of “It will come back. It can’t possibly go any lower. The company is too good. The market is too strong. Etc. Etc.”  A mechanical exit may be the only way this type of optimist can succeed.

The same can be said for scaling into and out of positions.

The one point that can be made for a well understood mechanical approach is that one has a statistical basis to use as a measure of success. If one has a number of poor trades in a row the mechanical system statistics can provide the information to understand if this is reasonable. Certain personalities would beat themselves up after n poor trades and then be off their game for x more trades. These either get out of the game or figure a way to avoid this. One approach is a mechanical approach.

Now following the rules of the system, that is for another discussion.