Bad bad day, TZA which was a huge winner now a loser, UUP which was a huge winner now almost got nothing and in case another gap down tomorrow, it’d be a loser too. Let your winner run? Come on, look at them, this is what you got to let the winner run. 
Anyway, you know I’m kidding. But I do mean there should be a balance between “let winner run” and “don’t let your winner become loser”.
Some are saying use huge position then taking profit fast leave only a small portion to run. I don’t think it’s a good idea, because first of all huge position means bigger risk, although you can say you leave your stop loss closer, no, it’s even bigger risk because your stop loss can then be easily hit. Secondly, leave only small portion to run, then it still doesn’t solve the question I raised earlier: Your loser is guaranteed a full loss but your winner is just a partial winner therefore you need lots of winners to beat one loser which is bad. I know some would say your own judgement is important which I agree but unfortunately this is what I’m trying to avoid here, because you, human, are too subjective, therefore make mistakes easily so there’s no guarantee a steady performance. The purpose of this research project is to find an objective way to do the trading.
The system will try to long Russell 2000 tomorrow. Set TNA buy stop at $45.02, stop loss around $34.03.
The system will try to short bond tomorrow. Set TMV buy stop at $77.97, stop loss around $68.61.
The system would like to buy the dollar dip. Set UUP buy stop at $22.11, stop loss around $21.64. This is a pyramid position.
The system will try to long gold tomorrow. Set DGP buy stop at $60.73, stop loss around $54.97.
Is it some kind of hedge that the system try to buy uup and gold together?
It’s automatic hedge. Each asset follows each own signals and since some assets change direction faster than the others, so during the transition period the portfolio get the hedge automatically.
nice