Re-reading (Market Wizards) at night, I saw a sentence that I had overlooked before:
'The secret to trading lies in deciding whether to trade short-term or long-term based on the holding time you can endure. The vast majority of trend followers choose to trade medium-term. The best trading strategy should try to avoid swings and inconsistent compromises.'
This sentence 'Avoiding the swings and the inconsistent compromises' is almost a precise hit on my current trading system.
My question: I have turned my trading system into a 'Frankenstein'.
My trading system was actually very simple and easy to execute at the beginning.
But the problem is:
Every time I encounter a new problem, I make a change
Every time there is a new requirement, I add another layer of rules
The result is — I am trying to achieve with one system at the same time:
Quick in and out
Capture major market trends
Not wanting to pay the cost for either side
But I aim to take profits from both sides at the same time
In the end, the system became a typical 'Frankenstein'.
The trading process is also becoming more cumbersome:
Entry → Floating profit (should I protect the principal) → Hitting the take-profit level (according to the scoring closing ratio) → If breakout confirmation (should I increase the position) → How to move the overall stop-loss up after increasing position → Subsequent structural points continue to move the stop-loss...
The result is:
Decision points are increasing
Execution difficulty is increasing
Emotional exhaustion is growing
Profitability is starting to become unstable and unpredictable
If this trading continues long-term, it will only become more exhausting.
My solution approach: strategy layering, no more compromises
So my answer is: no longer using a system that 'wants everything', but rather implementing strategy layering.
That is:
👉 Use two independent trading systems, each responsible for different tasks, instead of continuing to patch them together.
Advantages:
Solve the fundamental contradiction, no longer use vague compromise solutions
Compared to the original system, it is easier to execute and the logic is clearer
Facilitates review and optimization: can evaluate the system's advantages and disadvantages based on win rate, drawdown, and personal style
The drawbacks are also very real:
Double psychological testing: need to maintain objectivity and strict execution for both systems
Capital management is more complex
It may amplify inherent weaknesses, such as the psychological pressure during a phase of consecutive losses
Summary
The trading system must be 'easy to execute' rather than 'look smart'.
Once the system becomes too complex, it will ultimately turn into:
Trades planned were not executed, and all executed were unplanned trades.
So moving forward, I will first focus on one system, and then gradually refine and implement true strategy layering.
