Staged Trade Management: Partial Profits, Adds and Runner Stops

Video: MY COMPLETE TRADE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Creator: Oliver Velez Trading
Original Video: Watch the original video
Difficulty: Advanced

The Big Idea

Oliver Velez describes a staged management process for an opening short: judge the gap’s context, enter with a known risk budget, take some profit, protect the remainder, consider an add, and eventually let a trailing stop exit the final portion.

The most useful distinction is between taking profit deliberately and allowing a remaining position to exit through a rule. The title calls this a complete system, but several decisions—“excessive” gaps, sufficient red, meaningful pushes and adequate separation—remain discretionary in the transcript.

If You Remember Only One Thing

Give each phase of the trade a specific job, and recalculate risk whenever quantity or stop placement changes.

60-Second Summary

• The preferred execution chart is two minutes, with 20- and 200-period moving averages.
• Pre-open spacing between those averages describes narrow, wide or neutral context.
• The creator treats an excessive gap as a possible fade even from a narrow state.
• His first-bar entry waits until after the first minute.
• Initial protection is above the event, with position size limited by planned loss.
• First-leg profit taking retains a portion and moves its stop toward entry.
• An add follows a qualifying color-change event, potentially with separate protection.
• The final portion can trail bar by bar after sufficient favorable separation.

Context Before the Opening Trade

Velez warns that upward gaps originating from narrow 20/200 spacing can decline initially and then resume upward. He contrasts these with wide-state gaps and makes an exception for sufficiently excessive gaps.

Those are hypotheses suggested by the presentation, not measured frequency claims established here. The transcript supplies no threshold for narrowness or excessiveness. A test could normalize moving-average spacing and the opening gap by volatility, but those definitions would be independent additions.

The First Minute Is a Timing Restriction

The entry example watches red develop during the opening two-minute candle, but avoids its first minute. This requires information inside the candle. A final two-minute OHLC bar cannot establish exactly how much red was visible at 9:31:10 or whether an earlier high had already occurred.

The source also places protection one penny above the bar. For a live first-bar entry, the high known at that moment differs from the bar’s possible final high. A faithful test needs a precise rule for that evolving high and suitable intrabar data.

Know the Loss Before Entry

The source illustrates two 100-share lots with a roughly 50-cent stop distance. Gross planned loss is 200 × $0.50 = $100. If the protective penny is additional to that quoted distance, the distance is $0.51 and gross risk is $102 before costs. Include the full stop buffer in sizing rather than relying on rounded examples.

At a $0.75 stop distance, 200 shares risk $150. A $100 budget permits at most 133 whole shares before costs, or one 100-share lot if the plan uses those increments. The arithmetic should determine size; a favored setup does not change the budget.

Take a Portion, Then Manage What Remains

Velez describes first-leg profit-taking around three meaningful lower-low pushes and/or at least $0.50 per share for stocks above $50. He discourages tiny gains in that context and generally retains at least half under his strict rule.

The exact interaction between push count and the minimum move is not completely formalized. Define it before testing. For example, requiring three separated lows and $0.50 is different from allowing either threshold.

If 100 of 200 shares are covered for a $0.50 gain, the realized gross profit is $50. Moving the remaining 100-share stop to entry reduces planned loss on that leg, but does not guarantee the $50 is safe after gaps, slippage and fees. “Breakeven” at the entry price is not necessarily net breakeven.

Adding Creates a New Risk Decision

The next add is described as red erasing the first opposing green move, provided the entry is not too distant. The creator permits a separate stop for that add, while noting that different traders experience different results.

Track the original remainder and the add separately. A stop at the first entry and a stop above the add’s event protect different quantities at different prices. Realized profit does not eliminate the add’s loss potential.

The example later removes the newest add and retains the original portion as the runner. Broker accounting may not preserve that mental lot identity, so define the actual order identifiers and allocation rules for an automated version.

Use the Trail After Separation

The creator wants bar-by-bar protection only after moving away from an entry, a pause or a moving average. For a short, the stop follows completed candle highs as price declines. Tightening too close to the reference can exit the trade during ordinary oscillation.

A short trailing stop should not widen simply because the next candle has a higher high. A mechanical implementation can retain the lesser of the old stop and the new candidate high plus a buffer.

The advanced color-change exit depends on the evolving candle erasing its earlier red move. That is a distinct intrabar technique. The transcript’s claim that trailing the final portion outperforms discretionary taking over time is a claim to investigate, not a demonstrated statistical result.

Does a Rule-Based Runner Exit Help?

View Pine Script Backtest Code

//@version=6 strategy("CandleChasers Runner Exit Research", overlay=true, pyramiding=0, initial_capital=100000, commission_type=strategy.commission.percent, commission_value=0.01, slippage=1, process_orders_on_close=false, use_bar_magnifier=true) mode = input.string("Trail", "Exit method", options=["Trail", "Fixed target"]) stopAtr = input.float(1, "Initial stop / ATR", minval=0.1) rr = input.float(2, "Control target / stop distance", minval=0.1) awayAtr = input.float(1, "Trail activation distance / signal ATR", minval=0.1) bufferTicks = input.int(1, "Trailing high buffer ticks", minval=1) units = input.float(1, "Fixed quantity", minval=0.001) maxBars = input.int(60, "Maximum holding bars", minval=1) atr = ta.atr(14) ma = ta.sma(close, 20) // Independent entry scaffold: bearish close crossing under the SMA 20. signal = ta.crossunder(close, ma) and close < open var float signalAtr = na var int stopTicks = na var float trailStop = na var bool activated = false if strategy.position_size == 0 and barstate.isconfirmed and signal signalAtr := atr stopTicks := int(math.max(1, math.ceil(stopAtr * atr / syminfo.mintick))) trailStop := na activated := false strategy.entry("Runner", strategy.short, qty=units) if mode == "Fixed target" strategy.exit("Exit", "Runner", loss=stopTicks, profit=int(math.max(1, math.round(rr * stopTicks)))) else strategy.exit("Exit", "Runner", loss=stopTicks) if strategy.position_size < 0 entry = strategy.position_avg_price if na(trailStop) trailStop := entry + stopTicks * syminfo.mintick // Activation uses a completed favorable move away from actual entry. if entry - close >= awayAtr * signalAtr activated := true if mode == "Trail" and activated and barstate.isconfirmed candidate = high + bufferTicks * syminfo.mintick trailStop := math.min(trailStop, candidate) strategy.exit("Exit", "Runner", stop=trailStop) if strategy.opentrades > 0 and bar_index - strategy.opentrades.entry_bar_index(0) >= maxBars strategy.close("Runner", comment="Time exit") plot(ma, "Entry scaffold SMA 20", color=color.blue) plot(strategy.position_size < 0 and mode == "Trail" ? trailStop : na, "Runner stop", color=color.red, style=plot.style_linebr)

The code below compares a bar-high trail with a fixed target on the same independently chosen entry scaffold. This code tests one objective interpretation of the source’s concept. Mechanical definitions introduced here are ours and are not necessarily the creator’s exact rules.

Layer	Baseline choice
Source inspiration	Let the final short portion exit through a trailing rule after favorable separation.
Our definition	Activate after a completed close is 1 signal-time ATR below actual entry; ratchet to each completed bar high plus one tick.
Independent scaffold	Bearish close crossing below SMA 20, 1-ATR initial protection and fixed quantity.
Control and shortcuts	Compare with a 2R fixed target; no gap entry, partial profit or adds; 60-bar maximum holding threshold.

What This Code Actually Tests

The scaffold submits a short after a completed bearish SMA cross, normally filling on the next bar’s open. Its initial relative stop is submitted with the entry. Both variants use the same signal-time ATR distance from the simulated fill. The control also submits a relative profit target.

The trailing variant checks completed closes for activation, then updates protection from completed highs. Those updates become active after calculation; they cannot stop a trade retroactively during the candle that determined them. The initial stop remains the protection before the first trailing update.

The stop ratchets in the favorable direction. Fixed quantity is not fixed equity risk. One position is allowed; signals while invested are skipped. Different exit durations can therefore cause the variants to admit different later entries. For a strictly matched entry-cohort comparison, also study identical exported entry candidates rather than assuming the built-in runs share every trade.

What This Code Does Not Test

It does not reproduce the full opening-gap system, one-minute restriction, evolving first-bar stop, three pushes, $0.50 rule, half-position exit, breakeven transition, first-color-change add, separate lot stops, whale detection or advanced intrabar stopout.

The scaffold studies an exit hypothesis, not the performance of Velez’s full method. ATR distance from entry is only one definition of “away”; distance from the 20 average or from a frozen pause would create additional experiments.

Execution and Validation

Protection is submitted with entry, and no fill recalculation is used. Trail decisions use completed bars and target-distance rounding uses minimum ticks. Time exits are requested at the threshold and normally fill on a later tick. Gaps can exceed intended loss, and a bar-high trail can return some unrealized profit.

Bar Magnifier is enabled subject to available data. Costs are illustrative at 0.01% per order and one tick slippage, adjustable in Properties; borrowing and financing are absent. Use ordinary candles and audit same-bar stop/target cases.

Validation status: This script has not been compiled in TradingView or run against historical data here. No performance results are claimed.

Backtest Lab

Question	Change	Measure under consistent assumptions
Trail or target?	Trail versus fixed-target mode.	Net outcomes, drawdown, holding time and differing entry samples.
How much separation?	Activation at 0.5, 1, 1.5 ATR.	Giveback and exits before subsequent continuation.
How tight a trail?	Buffer 1, 3, 5 ticks.	Stop frequency and sensitivity to instrument tick size.

Record favorable excursion and realized outcome alongside ordinary performance metrics. Avoid selecting the best-looking trail from a single trend day; reserve untouched evaluation periods.

Try It Yourself

Draw a trade ledger with each entry, add, partial exit and stop change as a separate row. After every row, calculate open quantity, realized profit and planned loss at each active stop. Then identify the exact moment the trailing rule would become eligible.

Check your understanding: Is an entry-price stop guaranteed net breakeven? No. Can a completed high define an earlier intrabar exit? No. Why keep an add separate? Its entry and invalidation can differ. Does a strong first leg prove another equally large leg follows? No; that is a projection to evaluate.

Final Takeaway

The source treats management as a sequence of changing tasks rather than a single target. Take a portion, reassess risk, distinguish the add from the original remainder, and activate tighter protection only under a defined condition. The most useful next test is whether a consistent runner exit improves outcomes over a matched control.

---

Risk Disclosure: This material is for educational and research purposes only and is not investment advice. Trading can result in substantial losses. Backtests are hypothetical and depend on costs, liquidity, gaps, order behavior and intrabar assumptions. Actual execution and market changes can materially alter outcomes.

This article is an independent educational companion to the video and is not affiliated with, sponsored by, endorsed by, or authorized by Oliver Velez Trading.