2026-01-10 09:21:06

A friend recently came to consult me, saying he lost all 4000U in crypto futures trading and asking if there's still a chance to turn things around. I asked him to first review the process of his losses—going all-in, chasing highs and cutting losses, trading against the trend, basically stepping on all the taboo rules of futures trading.

After talking, I realized that his core issue isn't about market direction judgment, but rather that he has no systematic approach to opening positions. So I shared with him a relatively structured framework:

**Three Stages of Opening a Position:**

Step 1: Initially allocate 20% of your capital. This is the trial-and-error phase, using the smallest cost to test the market's temperament.

Step 2: If the market moves against you and losses reach 10%, cut your position immediately. This keeps single-losses within 2% of your total funds, avoiding serious damage.

Step 3: If the direction is correct, after a 10% profit, add 20%. Continue this rhythm—another 10% increase, then another 20%, and on the third time, increase to 40%. This way, you can amplify gains in the right direction and reduce your average cost through batch additions. As long as the position doesn't retrace to -10%, hold on; if it drops below that, close all positions.

The underlying logic of this framework is to prioritize risk management. It’s somewhat similar to the philosophy of the trading legend Livermore—controlling risk with discipline and proportionality, letting profitable trades run as much as possible, and cutting losses quickly.

Of course, this is just a basic framework. In actual trading, many variables come into play, and market movements are always uncertain. I follow this approach myself; it’s relatively stable, but I wouldn’t claim it’s 100% effective. The core value of this method is to keep risk within controllable limits and improve long-term win rates.

The easiest way to get trapped in futures trading is lacking a methodology—ultimately turning into market fodder. Having a framework or not makes a huge difference in the outcome.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

19 Likes

Reward
19
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

WagmiAnon

· 01-13 05:17

The guy who went all-in is truly a suicidal move hahaha --- This 20% opening position has been used by me for a long time. Stability is stability, but the returns are a bit low. --- It sounds good, but in actual operation, it still depends on market intuition. No matter how perfect the framework is, it can't beat the market whims. --- The Livermore approach is indeed excellent, but with so many black swan events in the crypto world, discipline can't save you either. --- Losing all 4000U is indeed tragic, but from another perspective, this is just paying tuition. Once you understand the rules, making it back is not difficult. --- Stop-loss is the hardest to execute. Seeing a rebound, you want to hold on a bit longer, and then there's nothing left. --- Adding positions, adding positions, adding positions sounds perfect, but do you dare to add when it hits the limit down? --- Having a strategy is a thousand times better than blindly messing around. I agree with that, but you still need to respect the market. --- Risk management is the art of staying alive. Without this concept, you'll eventually get liquidated. --- Trying 20% for a test position with a 10% stop-loss is indeed scientific, but the psychological barrier is the hardest to overcome.

View OriginalReply0

IronHeadMiner

· 01-11 19:36

It makes some sense, but I think the key is still mindset. No matter how good the framework is, greed can't be resisted.

View OriginalReply0

NestedFox

· 01-11 17:31

Basically, it's a lack of discipline. Going all-in with 4000U and losing everything is deserved. Those who survive are the ones with stop-losses. This really hit home for me.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHarvester

· 01-10 12:36

To be honest, losing 4000U is something I'm very familiar with. It's happening every day in the circle. The all-in approach can really ruin people. This framework sounds good, but what I really want to ask is—how many people can truly stick to stop-loss? Most are still controlled by FOMO, watching helplessly as -10% turns into -50% and they can't bring themselves to sell.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHarvester

· 01-10 09:45

The statement is correct, but I'm more concerned about how my friends with 4000U are doing now. Have they turned things around?

View OriginalReply0

MissedTheBoat

· 01-10 09:42

Going all-in to chase gains and buy the dip against the trend, this guy has messed up the crypto derivatives game. Honestly, without a plan, you're just courting death. Alright, this framework sounds good, but I still believe that knowing and doing are completely two different things. That's why most people are still just newbies; they simply can't execute. Stop-loss is really too difficult; the mental hurdle is hard to overcome. To put it nicely, in actual operation, who the hell can tolerate a 20% stop-loss? The Livermore approach is indeed brilliant, but the market variables are just too many now.

View OriginalReply0

AmateurDAOWatcher

· 01-10 09:40

Well said, buddy. This is the right way to live in the crypto world; otherwise, you'll just become a leek farm.

View OriginalReply0

Layer3Dreamer

· 01-10 09:39

theoretically speaking, the recursive nature of this risk framework actually mirrors cross-rollup state verification... except most people can't execute it under pressure lol

Reply0

HalfBuddhaMoney

· 01-10 09:33

To be honest, this framework is indeed better than blindly going all-in, but what I really want to ask is—can anyone really stick to executing it?

View OriginalReply0