DislikedI will end with a question. To produce a free trade, it makes no difference whether half profit is taken off at 1:1 RR, or the SL is moved to breakeven. Peter apparently recommends the former. The trade-off (as I see it) being that this gives price more subsequent room to move initially, but the halved pos size is going to cut profits from all winning trades by 50%. If the DIBS philosophy is to let profits run (note Peter’s comment: "the best trades for us are the ones that don't give you ANY retracement after the breakout"), then I would have thought that the object would be to let as much of the position run as possible. Comments, anybody?
DavidIgnored
I think there is no right or wrong here. It´s about feeling comfortable. People who take out half the position after 1R gain the good feeling of a free trade at the costs of cutting the full potential of the trade.
I remember TRT writing, that taking out half of the position and let the other half run is not one system, but two. Both are separate systems. The first with the chance to either win 1 R or lose 1 R, so you need at least 51% profitable trades to have an edge. The second one with the chance of either losing 1R or winning "infinite" R.
The decision one has to make is to trade both systems or just one (#1 or #2).
Peter once noted that TRT called him the "most reluctant trader" he´s ever seen. If you put that in perspective, it could mean, that Peter just tries to trade high potential trades in his preferred direction, instead of taking every setup forming in the market. He admitted this by saying, that he was just looking for long entries on one day. TRT probably would have taken short trades too. That would otherwise mean, that the system has an edge no matter if you try to trade with the main trend only or if you´re willing to also open positions against the trend to participate in a potential retracement.
The hardest part of all this and of trading in general is, to accept, that losses are part of the business. Once you´ve realized that, you can start trading system #2. I´d love to do that and tried it already with 1R being 0.5% of my equity, but after a few losses I tend to trade system #1 and #2 to be at least break even if the one half reaches the 1R level - just to feel more comfortable.
On the long term it´s probably more profitable to trade system #2 only. I just don´t have the guts to do so right now
Just 2 cents from another David