Trading in the Zone

by Mark Douglas

  In any case, whatever system you choose, it has to be absolutely exact, requiring no subjective decision making. Again, no extraneous or random variables can enter into the equation.

  Time Frame. Your trading methodology can be in any time frame that suits you, but all your entry and exit signals have to be based in the same time frame. For example, if you use variables that identify a particular support and resistance pattern on a 30-minute bar chart, then your risk and profit objective calculations also have to be determined in a 30-minute time frame.

  However, trading in one time frame does not preclude you from using other time frames as filters. For example, you could have as a filter a rule that states you’re only going to take trades that are in the direction of the major trend. There’s an old trading axiom that “The trend is your friend.” It means that you have a higher probability of success when you trade in the direction of the major trend, if there is one. In fact, the lowest-risk trade, with the highest probability of success, occurs when you are buying dips (support) in an up-trending market or selling rallies (resistance) in a down-trending market.

  To illustrate how this rule works, let’s say that you’ve chosen a precise way of identifying support and resistance patterns in a 30-minute time frame as your edge. The rule is that you are only going to take trades in the direction of the major trend. A trending market is defined as a series of higher highs and higher lows for an up-trending market and a series of lower highs and lower lows for a down-trending market. The longer the time frame, the more significant the trend, so a trending market on a daily bar chart is more significant than a trending market on a 30-minute bar chart. Therefore, the trend on the daily bar chart would take precedence over the trend on the 30-minute bar chart and would be considered the major trend.

  To determine the direction of the major trend, look at what is happening on a daily bar chart. If the trend is up on the daily, you are only going to look for a sell-off or retracement down to what your edge defines as support on the 30-minute chart. That’s where you will become a buyer. On the other hand, if the trend is down on the daily, you are only going to look for a rally up to what your edge defines as a resistance level to be a seller on the 30-minute chart.

  Your objective is to determine, in a down-trending market, how far it can rally on an intraday basis and still not violate the symmetry of the longer trend. In an up-trending market, your objective is to determine how far it can sell off on an intraday basis without violating the symmetry of the longer trend. There’s usually very little risk associated with these intraday support and resistance points, because you don’t have to let the market go very far beyond them to tell you the trade isn’t working.

  Taking Profits. Believe it or not, of all the skills one needs to learn to be a consistently successful trader, learning to take profits is probably the most difficult to master. A multitude of personal, often very complicated psychological factors, as well as the effectiveness of one’s market analysis, enter into the equation. Unfortunately, sorting out this complex matrix of issues goes way beyond the scope of this book. I point this out so that those of you who might be inclined to beat yourselves up for leaving money on the table can relax and give yourselves a break. Even after you’ve acquired all the other skills, it might take a very long time before you get this one down pat.

  Don’t despair. There is a way to set up a profit-taking regime that at least fulfills the objective of the fifth principle of consistency (“I pay myself as the market makes money available to me”). If you’re going to establish a belief in yourself that you’re a consistent winner, then you will have to create experiences that correspond with that belief. Because the object of the belief is winning consistently, how you take profits in a winning trade is of paramount importance.

  This is the only part of the exercise in which you will have some degree of discretion about what you do. The underlying premise is that, in a winning trade, you never know how far the market is going to go in your direction. Markets rarely go straight up or straight down. (Many of the NASDAQ Internet stocks in the fall of 1999 were an obvious exception to this statement.) Typically, markets go up and then retrace some portion of the upward move; or go down and then retrace some portion of the downward move.

  These proportional retracements can make it very difficult to stay in a winning trade. You would have to be an extremely sophisticated and objective analyst to make the distinction between a normal retracement, when the market still has the potential to move in the original direction of your trade, and a retracement that isn’t normal, when the potential for any further movement in the original direction of your trade is greatly diminished, if not nonexistent.

  If you never know how far the market is going to go in your direction, then when and how do you take profits? The question of when is a function of your ability to read the market and pick the most likely spots for it to stop. In the absence of an ability to do this objectively, the best course of action from a psychological perspective is to divide your position into thirds (or quarters), and scale out the position as the market moves in your favor. If you are trading futures contracts, this means your minimum position for a trade is at least three (or four) contracts. For stocks, the minimum position is any number of shares that is divisible by three (or four), so you don’t end up with an odd-lot order.

  Here’s the way I scale out of a winning position. When I first started trading, especially during the first three years (1979 through 1981), I would thoroughly and regularly analyze the results of my trading activities. One of the things I discovered was that I rarely got stopped out of a trade for a loss, without the market first going at least a little way in my direction. On average, only one out of every ten trades was an immediate loser that never went in my direction. Out of the other 25 to 30 percent of the trades that were ultimately losers, the market usually went in my direction by three or four tics before revising and stopping me out. I calculated that if I got into the habit of taking at least a third of my original position off every time the market gave me those three or four tics, at the end of the year the accumulated winnings would go a long way towards paying my expenses. I was right. To this day, I always, without reservation or hesitation, take off a portion of a winning position whenever the market gives me a little to take. How much that might be depends on the market; it will be a different amount in each case. For example, in Treasury bond futures, I take a third of my position off when I get four tics. In the S&P futures, I take a third off for a profit of one and a half to two full points.

  In a bond trade, I usually don’t risk more than six tics to find out if the trade is going to work. Using a three-contract trade as an example, here’s how it works: If I get into a position and the market immediately goes against me without giving me at least four tics first, I get stopped out of the trade for an 18-tic loss, but as I’ve indicated, this doesn’t happen often. More likely, the trade goes in my favor by some small amount before becoming a loser. If it goes in my favor by at least four tics, I take those four tics on one contract. What I have done is reduce my total risk on the other two contracts by 10 tics. If the market then stops me out of the last two contracts, the net loss on the trade is only 8 tics.

  If I don’t get stopped out on the last two contracts and the market moves in my direction, I take the next third of the position off at some predetermined profit objective. This is based on some longer time frame support or resistance, or on the test of a previous significant high or low. When I take profits on the second third, I also move the stop-loss to my original entry point. Now I have a net profit on the trade regardless of what happens to the last third of the position.

  In other words, I now have a “risk-free opportunity.” I can’t emphasize enough nor can the publisher make the words on this page big enough to stress how important it is for you to experience the state of “risk-free opportunity.” When you set up a situation in which there is “risk-free opportunity,” there’s no way to lose u
nless something extremely unusual happens, like a limit up or limit down move through your stop. If, under normal circumstances, there’s no way to lose, you get to experience what it really feels like to be in a trade with a relaxed, carefree state of mind.

  To illustrate this point, imagine that you are in a winning trade; the market made a fairly significant move in your direction, but you didn’t take any profits because you thought it was going even further. However, instead of going further, the market trades all the way back to or very close to your original entry point. You panic and, as a result, liquidate the trade, because you don’t want to let what was once a winning trade turn into a loser. But as soon as you’re out, the market bounces right back into what would have been a winning trade. If you had locked in some profits by scaling out, putting yourself in a risk-free opportunity situation, it’s very unlikely that you would have panicked or felt any stress or anxiety for that matter.

  I still have a third of my position left. What now? I look for the most likely place for the market to stop. This is usually a significant high or low in a longer time frame. I place my order to liquidate just below that spot in a long position or just above that spot in a short position. I place my orders just above or just below because I don’t care about squeezing the last tic out of the trade. I have found over the years that trying to do that just isn’t worth it.

  One other factor you need to take into consideration is your risk-to-reward ratio. The risk-to-reward ratio is the dollar value of how much risk you have to take relative to the profit potential. Ideally, your risk-to-reward ratio should be at least 3:1, which means you are only risking one dollar for every three dollars of profit potential. If your edge and the way you scale out of your trades give you a 3:1 risk-to-reward ratio, your winning trade percentage can be less than 50 percent and you will still make money consistently.

  A 3:1 risk-to-reward ratio is ideal. However, for the purposes of this exercise, it doesn’t matter what it is, nor does it matter how effectively you scale out, as long as you do it. Do the best you can to pay yourself at reasonable profit levels when the market makes the money available. Every portion of a trade that you take off as a winner will contribute to your belief that you are a consistent winner. All the numbers will eventually come into better alignment as your belief in your ability to be consistent becomes stronger.

  Trading in Sample Sizes. The typical trader practically lives or dies (emotionally) on the results of the most recent trade. If it was a winner, he’ll gladly go to the next trade; if it wasn’t, he’ll start questioning the viability of his edge. To find out what variables work, how well they work, and what doesn’t work, we need a systematic approach, one that doesn’t take any random variables into consideration. This means that we have to expand our definition of success or failure from the limited trade-by-trade perspective of the typical trader to a sample size of 20 trades or more.

  Any edge you decide on will be based on some limited number of market variables or relationships between those variables that measure the market’s potential to move either up or down. From the market’s perspective, each trader who has the potential to put on or take off a trade can act as a force on price movement and is, therefore, a market variable. No edge or technical system can take into consideration every trader and his reasons for putting on or taking off a trade. As a result, any set of market variables that defines an edge is like a snapshot of something very fluid, capturing only a limited portion of all the possibilities.

  When you apply any set of variables to the market, they may work very well over an extended period of time, but after a while you may find that their effectiveness diminishes. That’s because the underlying dynamics of the interaction between all the participants (the market) is changing. New traders come into the market with their own unique ideas of what is high and what is low, and other traders leave. Little by little, these changes affect the underlying dynamics of how the market moves. No snapshot (rigid set of variables) can take these subtle changes into consideration.

  You can compensate for these subtle changes in the underlying dynamics of market movement and still maintain a consistent approach by trading in sample sizes. Your sample size has to be large enough to give your variables a fair and adequate test, but at the same time small enough so that if their effectiveness diminishes, you can detect it before you lose an inordinate amount of money. I have found that a sample size of at least 20 trades fulfills both of these requirements.

  Testing. Once you decide on a set of variables that conform to these specifications, you need to test them to see how well they work. If you have the appropriate software to do this, you are probably already familiar with the procedures. If you don’t have testing software, you can either forward test your variables or hire a testing service to do it for you. If you need a recommendation for a testing service, contact me at markdouglas.com or tradinginthezone.com for a referral. In any case, keep in mind that the object of the exercise is to use trading as a vehicle to learn how to think objectively (in the market’s perspective), as if you were a casino operator. Right now, the bottom-line performance of your system isn’t very important, but it is important that you have a good idea of what you can expect in the way of a win-to-loss ratio (the number of winning trades relative to the number of losing trades for your sample size).

  Accepting the Risk. A requirement of this exercise is that you know in advance exactly what your risk is on each trade in your 20-trade sample size. As you now know, knowing the risk and accepting the risk are two different things. I want you to be as comfortable as possible with the dollar value of the risk you are taking in this exercise. Because the exercise requires that you use a 20-trade sample size, the potential risk is that you will lose on all 20 trades. This is obviously the worst-case scenario. It is as likely an occurrence as that you will-win on all 20 trades, which means it isn’t very likely. Nevertheless, it is a possibility. Therefore, you should set up the exercise in such a way that you can accept the risk (in dollar value) of losing on all 20 trades.

  For example, if you’re trading S&P futures, your edge might require that you risk three full points per contract to find out if the trade is going to work. Since the exercise requires that you trade a minimum of three contracts per trade, the total dollar value of the risk per trade is $2,250, if you use big contracts. The accumulated dollar value of risk if you lose on all 20 trades is $45,000. You may not be comfortable risking $45,000 on this exercise.

  If you’re not comfortable, you can reduce the dollar value of the risk by trading S&P mini contracts (E-Mini). They are one-fifth the value of the big contracts, so the total dollar value of the risk per trade goes down to $450 and the accumulated risk for all 20 trades is $9,000. You can do the same thing if you are trading stocks: just keep on reducing the number of shares per trade until you get to a point where you are comfortable with the total accumulated risk for all 20 trades.

  What I don’t want you to do is change your established risk parameters to satisfy your comfort levels. If, based on your research, you have determined that a three-point risk in the S&Ps is the optimum distance you must let the market trade against your edge to tell you it isn’t worth staying in the position, then leave it at three points. Change this variable only if it is warranted from a technical analysis perspective.

  If you’ve done everything possible to reduce your position size and find that you still aren’t comfortable with the accumulated dollar value of losing on all 20 trades, then I suggest you do the exercise with a simulated brokerage service. With a simulated brokerage service, everything about the process of putting on and taking off trades, including fills and brokerage statements, is exactly the same as with an actual brokerage firm, except that the trades are not actually entered into the market. As a result, you don’t actually have any money at risk. A simulated brokerage service is an excellent tool to practice with in real time, under real market conditions; it is also an excellent tool for forward testing a tradin
g system. There may be others, but the only service of this nature that I know of is Auditrack.com.

  Doing the Exercise. When you have a set of variables that conforms to the specifications described, you know exactly what each trade is going to cost to find out if it’s going to work, you have a plan for taking profits, and you know what you can expect as a win-loss ratio for your sample size, then you are ready to begin the exercise.

  The rules are simple: Trade your system exactly as you have designed it. This means you have to commit yourself to trading at least the next 20 occurrences of your edge—not just the next trade or the next couple of trades, but all 20, no matter what. You cannot deviate, use or be influenced by any other extraneous factors, or change the variables that define your edge until you have completed a full sample size.

  By setting up the exercise with rigid variables that define your edge, relatively fixed odds, and a commitment to take every trade in your sample size, you have created a trading regime that duplicates how a casino operates. Why do casinos make consistent money on an event that has a random outcome? Because they know that over a series of events, the odds are in their favor. They also know that to realize the benefits of the favorable odds, they have to participate in every event. They can’t engage in a process of picking and choosing which hand of blackjack, spin of the roulette wheel, or roll of the dice they are going to participate in, by trying to predict in advance the outcome of each of these individual events.