Alexander Elder: Connect Trading Rules, Mind and Risk

A hypothetical trade has an entry at 40.00, an exit reference at 38.00 and a quantity of 500 shares. The planned price risk is 1,000 before costs. If the trader quietly doubles the quantity after a profitable week, the chart hasn’t changed, but the account exposure has. Alexander Elder’s work brings that connection between method, behaviour and money into the same discussion.

Elder’s official biography identifies him as a psychiatrist and the author of Trading for a Living, first published in 1993. His trader development course describes Mind, Method and Money as connected parts of trading. That offers a useful way to review a decision without assuming every loss came from the same cause.

The worked examples below are independent, hypothetical applications of that broad framework. Their settings, budgets and outcomes aren’t Elder’s personal trades or prescribed parameters. Each example makes one component inspectable, so a trader can distinguish an unclear method from a sizing error or a departure from a written plan.

Alexander Elder puts three questions beside one trade

In the opening example, the method question concerns why 40.00 qualifies as an entry and 38.00 as an exit reference. The money question concerns whether 500 shares fit the account’s stated limits. The behaviour question concerns whether the actual order follows the plan.

Suppose the written quantity was 250 shares, with planned price risk of 500. An actual order for 500 shares doubles that exposure. A subsequent rise to 42.00 would produce a larger gross gain, but it would leave the deviation intact. Recording only the gain would hide the action that changed the risk.

I find the 250-versus-500 comparison more useful than a journal entry saying “overconfidence.” The quantities identify what happened. Overconfidence is one possible explanation, alongside an order-entry mistake or a misunderstood rule. The record needs enough detail to distinguish them.

A review can therefore preserve the original plan, the actual order and the reason recorded at the time. Later explanations may be sincere while still reflecting knowledge of the outcome. A timestamp gives the account a firmer basis than a recollection assembled after the position closes.

Assign each chart a job before adding another screen

Multiple charts can organise a decision if their roles are explicit. In a hypothetical study, the weekly chart supplies a direction filter, the daily chart identifies a pullback and an intraday chart defines the entry event. These are separate decisions with separate information requirements.

For example, a weekly moving average could be rising, while the daily market retreats from 62.00 to 59.00. An intraday recovery above 59.50 could become the proposed trigger. The specific thresholds are invented for illustration. They describe a rule that can be tested; they don’t establish that agreement across timeframes improves returns.

The MACD guide explains one tool that can describe momentum. Before using any such filter, the study needs to say whether it relies on a completed weekly bar or the still-changing current week. A Wednesday decision can’t use Friday’s final reading.

Adding screens also creates opportunities to overrule an inconvenient signal. If the weekly view blocks a daily setup, switching to a monthly chart until the direction agrees changes the method. Recording which screen has authority prevents the analysis from becoming an open-ended search for permission.

A colour change leaves several decisions unfinished

The Elder Impulse System combines changes in an exponential moving average and the MACD histogram. Consider an illustrative bar for which the average rises from 49.80 to 49.90 and the histogram rises from minus 0.20 to minus 0.10. Both have increased, although the histogram remains negative.

That distinction between direction and level matters. A rising histogram below zero describes a different condition from a positive histogram that is falling. A reader who treats every green bar as meaning “momentum is above zero” has changed the interpretation of the components.

A colour alone doesn’t specify the quantity, the maximum acceptable distance from an entry, or the event that ends the trade. Those questions remain even when the indicator is calculated correctly. If price has already advanced from 50.00 to 54.00, the distance to a hypothetical 49.50 exit reference is now 4.50.

A practical study can log the colour, the component values and the distance to the intended exit. This allows a comparison between signals near a defined setup and signals that appear after a larger move. It also keeps the visual convenience of the tool from concealing the economics of the trade.

Convert a risk allowance into a quantity

Suppose a fictional account holds 50,000 and its study plan allows 0.5% of equity as initial price risk on one position. That is 250. An entry at 80.00 and a protective reference at 78.75 create a distance of 1.25, giving a maximum of 200 shares before fees, slippage and other constraints.

I use the 200-share calculation to separate risk from capital committed. The position’s entry value is 16,000, or 32% of the example account, while the planned price loss is 250. Those are different measures, and a small planned stop loss doesn’t make a concentrated position harmless.

If price gaps to 77.50 before an exit can execute, the price loss at that fill is 500. The original allowance wasn’t a guarantee. Liquidity, overnight events and order behaviour affect the result, and a protective order may execute at a different price from its trigger.

The chosen 0.5% is only an example. It isn’t a recommendation or an assertion about Elder’s own sizing. Selecting a budget requires evidence about the method, likely losing sequences, portfolio overlap and the account’s constraints. A familiar percentage cannot answer all of those questions.

A monthly boundary needs a precise definition

A fictional research plan might pause new entries after 1,000 of realised losses in a month. At the time that boundary is reached, two open positions each carry 300 of additional planned risk. Ignoring them would understate the exposure that remains.

The plan needs to define what the boundary measures: realised results, current account equity, open risk, or a combination. It also needs to state what happens to existing positions and pending orders. “Stop after a bad month” leaves every one of those decisions unresolved.

A trader using this framework might review a worked case with 700 realised losses and 600 of open planned risk. Under a combined 1,000 limit, the total of 1,300 would exceed the boundary. Under a realised-loss-only rule, the pause would not yet trigger. The arithmetic exposes the difference between the two policies.

The Ralph Vince profile provides a related perspective on sizing and account outcomes. For an Elder-inspired review, the practical issue is consistency: the definition recorded before the month begins has to match the one used when results become uncomfortable.

A journal can distinguish a signal problem from an execution problem

Imagine 20 hypothetical qualifying setups. The model produces eight gains of 2R and twelve losses of 1R, for a gross total of 4R. Here R denotes the initial planned risk of each case. The actual record contains only six of those gains, all twelve losses and two additional trades outside the rules.

The difference deserves investigation. It doesn’t establish that anxiety caused the missed gains. Perhaps the signals arrived when the trader was unavailable, the data arrived late or the instrument couldn’t be traded at the simulated price. Those are operational explanations with different remedies.

A useful journal would preserve signal availability, planned and actual fills, quantities, costs and reasons for exceptions. It can record emotional observations too, using descriptions such as “hesitated after two losses.” The observation is a starting point for analysis, rather than a diagnosis.

Even perfect execution of these 20 cases wouldn’t prove the method has a lasting advantage. The sample is small and its result may depend on one market phase. Mind, Method and Money each deserve scrutiny; a tidy journal cannot manufacture evidence the strategy lacks.

Choose the book by the decision being studied

A reader examining the 80.00 entry and 78.75 exit example can use Elder’s broader books to compare the treatment of method and money. A reader reviewing actual decision records may prefer the case-based format of Entries and Exits. These are different reading tasks, so the title and edition matter.

Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

Trading for a Living, by Alexander Elder, is the original title, linked in hardcover: (US) Trading for a Living, (UK) Trading for a Living, (DE) Trading for a Living.

The New Trading for a Living, by Alexander Elder, is a separate updated title, linked in hardcover: (US) The New Trading for a Living, (UK) The New Trading for a Living, (DE) The New Trading for a Living.

Come Into My Trading Room, by Alexander Elder, is linked in hardcover: (US) Come Into My Trading Room, (UK) Come Into My Trading Room, (DE) Come Into My Trading Room.

Entries and Exits: Visits to Sixteen Trading Rooms, by Alexander Elder, is linked in hardcover: (US) Entries and Exits, (DE) Entries and Exits.

The New Sell and Sell Short, by Alexander Elder, is the revised paperback, distinct from the earlier title: (US) The New Sell and Sell Short, (UK) The New Sell and Sell Short, (DE) The New Sell and Sell Short.

Make the next exception visible

An order for 500 shares against a 250-share plan is a fact a review can examine. A profitable outcome doesn’t erase it. Preserving that discrepancy gives Elder’s three-part framework a concrete place to begin, before explanations about discipline become too broad to test.

Learn the pattern. Ride the trend. Keep the gains.

Educational content only. Not investment advice. Trading involves risk. You are responsible for your decisions.