If you're a lazy reader, here's a summary:
Sizing beats entry. Being average on entry with perfect sizing beats having a perfect entry with reckless sizing -good sizing keeps you in the game, while poor sizing eventually takes you out
Your own behaviour signals bad sizing. This tells you that a position is too large: you can't hold your stop, you're checking it every two minutes, it's dictating your mood, or you need it to work today
Two types of conviction require different sizing. Research conviction (your view on direction) is usually high, but time-path conviction (how the trade gets there) is almost always lower. The most common mistake is sizing a slow, multi-month thesis as if it needs to work this week
Hidden correlation = hidden size. Portfolios that look diversified often share the same underlying factor. In calm markets, correlations sit low; in stress events, they snap toward 1 - turning what looked like ten separate positions into one giant, concentrated bet
Use a three-bucket framework. Size positions in three stages - Test (small, information-gathering), Core (normal working size once the thesis confirms), and Press (maximum size only when already being paid and risk is shrinking). Traders who blow up almost always skip straight to "Press." This process is very similar to Druckenmiller.
In drawdowns, the answer is less risk, not more. Sizing up to recover losses creates a death spiral: bigger size leads to worse decisions, which leads to deeper drawdowns. The correct response is to cut size in half, take fewer trades, and rebuild only after proving you're back in sync with the market.
English
