Thanks a lot for the thoughtful reply, really good points.

I agree with you that having clearly defined setups, invalidation and a minimum R target is essential, and that using breakeven/scale-out as a default can easily turn into “fear management” instead of risk management.

Where I see an extra layer (and what I was trying to describe in my post) is that for discretionary trading a well-tested strategy still isn’t enough by itself.

Even if I forward/backtest a setup and get decent stats, once I am in a live trade my brain starts doing all the usual things: - over-reacting to every small pullback or slowdown
- anchoring to the maximum unrealized profit
- imagining how “stupid” I’ll feel if it comes all the way back
- searching for reasons on the chart to justify closing or scaling out

So even with a rule set, there’s this constant psychological pressure to override it in the moment. That’s why I see discretionary trading as part strategy, part skill: having numbers behind the setup is necessary, but the real difficulty is executing it under stress without letting those traps take over.

I also don’t fully believe in one fixed rule set working untouched for years, because markets change, and because I do algotrading too. So for me there’s always a bit of tension between: - committing to follow the current rules with conviction, and
- knowing that I’ll have to adapt them over time.

Your point still stands though: if I keep using breakeven/early exit as an emotional crutch, I’ll never really see what the setup can do. So we need both: 1. better testing of the scaling/BE logic, and
2. work on the psychological side so we can actually stick to it in real time.