I just can't stay out of the debate no matter how much I try to. I am as well-rehearsed in financial history as anyone. I have read about LTCM, Nick Leeson (I

I just can't stay out of the debate no matter how much I try to. I am as well-rehearsed in financial history as anyone. I have read about LTCM, Nick Leeson (I even watched the movie), etc. In these situations there was so much size being used that if any unexpected squeeze scenario occurred, those guys would move the markets and cause a horrible chain reaction. I understand on the surface this totally looks like I'm trading in a "eat like a chicken, shit like an elephant" type of fashion. If I were in your shoes and I read "guy made x, x, x consistently and lost 20x one time!!!" I'd be thinking along the same lines. The difference is, I had more control of my outcome. It's hard to prove this and you won't totally believe me unless you are also a day trader who grinds it out and has a feel for intraday liquidity and slippage (particularly on the otc/pink sheets). I wasn't trading such a large size where I would move the market if I was squeezed out. The risk distribution of intraday scalps is not at all similar to writing naked options with unlimited loss. It's like this: normal trade: entry signal occurs. get in. exit signal occurs. get out. the trade in particular: exit signal occurred and i chose to ignore it and keep scaling in. would there have been awful slippage? yeah but it would have manageable. in the heat of the moment on the largest loss ever, 10-15c slippage on a $4 stock massive size feels like the end of the world but it's better than riding it down 50c or a point.