Understanding the Infeasibility of '1% Risk to Equity' and Benefits of High ADR% Securities Your question is excellent, and I’d like to clarify why aiming for a 1% risk-to-equity ratio is often unrealistic due to position sizing constraints. I’ll also compare lower ADR% products, like $XRT at 1.41% ADR, with higher ADR% products, like $RETL at 4.06% ADR (a 3x leverage of $XRT, sharing the same price structure on intraday timeframes). In the example below, I simulate an entry price and stop-loss price based on $XRT and $RETL high and low range and automate the calculation of position size % required for a “1% risk” approach relative to account equity (excluding existing unrealized gains/losses of other positions). Using a 1% risk model, you would need to allocate almost your entire account (without margin) to $XRT and about 30% of your account to $RETL with its higher ADR%. The 1% risk approach may work for traders constraining themselves to securities with ADRs above 5%, as structuring trades based on high/low intraday ranges often only requires 10-25% of equity, enabling a minimum of four concurrent positions on swings. However, with names like $TSLA, $MSFT, or $NVDA, even synthetic leveraged of those names like $TSLL, $MSTU, or $NVDU wouldn’t allow for comfortable positioning. This is no secret if you have the right metrics on your spreadsheet. @stamatoudism have also highlighted about inflexibility of even 0.5% risk in his first interview with @traderlion I suggest starting with a 0.15% risk per trade, increasing only when you begin to see the benefit of having a ADR% cut off in your screening and share structure of higher ADR% securities. Personally, I max out at around 0.33%, especially when most active names now are in the 2b-25b market cap range, with floats below 50 million shares and ADRs above 4.5%. This are the trademark of momentum names, and it make alot of sense why are able to move in such rapid fashion on those share structure. I just wish to add that High ADR% securities offer the benefit of greater intraday range expansion without substantial capital lock-up compared to lower ADR% names. I avoid trading products like $XRT or $TSLA directly, preferring leveraged ETFs when they provide sufficient liquidity for the same reason. It gives you alot of capital excess when a 5-star/A-rated setup in the latter stage of your position building.

this is the reason why you need to try to control your losses less than -1R losses via 3 stop strategy based on 33% stops per distance from your ultimate stop level. This big data principle will traject the parabolic effect on your equity curve at a much faster rate. I have not even touched on the magical effect of a 50R winner or a sequential 3-8R winner on the growth of your dollar risk and equity curve. You can't control the outcome of any trade, but you definitely can control your losses.

4. Short Term Breath NH/NL (New Highs - New Lows of 52 Weeks Level) The number displays the daily difference between the number of stocks reaching new 52-week highs and the number of stocks reaching new 52-week lows across Nasdaq, NYSE and AMEA. There are various sources you could extract this data but the most comprehensive one would be barchart.com/stocks/highs-lo… If you are a TradingView user, you may search for the below 2 indicators of different variation; 1. @DumbleDax - 'Net New Highs/Lows (with visible code) by Fred6724 2. @Trader_mcaruso - 'US Markets Net Hew Highs/Lows by CarusoInsights

“understand the rationale” the most significant part here and most traders miss this concept while they hunt for what works for someone else.