Today, NQ Open Range 2026 was up approximately $3,500 per contract on a strong short trade. The market then reversed, and the strategy was eventually stopped out for a loss of approximately $1,000 per contract.
That naturally raises the question:
Was this a systematic failure? Should a strategy ever allow a profitable trade to turn into a loser?
The better question may be:
Should we allow a significant profit to turn into a loser?
That distinction matters.
A trading rule like “never let a profit turn into a loss” sounds good in theory, but in practice it can completely change the nature of a strategy. If a system is intentionally designed as a home-run strategy, then micromanaging open profits may reduce the very upside that made the strategy valuable in the first place.
Home-run strategies are difficult to trade because they often have a lower winning percentage, wider trade distribution, and more frequent situations where open profits give back before the trade either resumes or fails. The edge is not necessarily in winning often. The edge is in allowing the larger winners to fully develop when the opportunity is there.
This is especially important at the portfolio level.
If a portfolio is intentionally built with a mix of methodologies — trend, countertrend, mean reversion, breakout, open range, and asymmetric trade structures — then every strategy does not need to behave the same way. Some systems are designed to grind. Others are designed to hit larger outlier trades. If we micromanage every strategy the same way, we may unintentionally reduce the diversification and alter the long-term portfolio outcome.
I recently watched an interview with an equity options trader who reportedly turned $5,000 into eight figures after trading since 2010. That is obviously a rare result, helped by timing, skill, technology stocks, risk tolerance, and mindset. But one point he made was very similar to the way many systematic futures strategies are designed:
He does not micromanage every trade.
He views each options position as an asymmetric bet. Instead of buying $1,000 worth of options and exiting if the position is down 30%, he might simply risk $300 from the start and allow the position to either expire worthless or reach his time and profit targets.
That approach is psychologically difficult because the win rate may be low. But the idea is similar to a home-run futures strategy: define the risk, accept the probability distribution, and let the trade structure work as designed.
The advantage we have in futures is that systematic backtesting is generally more direct and reliable than options backtesting. Options require assumptions about implied volatility, strike selection, expiration, liquidity, spreads, and changing market structure. Futures strategies are not easy to build, but they are usually cleaner to test historically.
That makes testing critical.
If the data shows that a revised exit improves the strategy — and also improves the way the strategy fits inside the broader portfolio — then a portfolio-level adjustment may be justified. But if the new exit simply makes one uncomfortable trade look better while reducing long-term expectancy, then the adjustment may do more harm than good.
In today’s video, we test two exit strategies that could potentially be applied to NQ Open Range 2026 and examine whether either improves the strategy without damaging its original purpose.
The key issue is not whether one trade gave back open profit.
The key issue is whether the exit logic improves the long-term strategy and portfolio outcome.
NQ Open Range 2026 was originally released as an improvement to the original Open Range strategy by adding one additional rule. Today’s discussion continues that process: testing whether additional exit logic can improve the strategy while preserving the asymmetric opportunity it was designed to capture.
NQ Open Range 2026
1/1/2023-4/30/2026
$25 Round Turn Slippage and Commission
Hypothetical Performance Summary
NQ Open Range 2026 with VR ATS Trailing SL
1/1/2023-4/30/2026
$25 Round Turn Slippage and Commission
Hypothetical Performance Summary
NQ Open Range 2026 with Percent Trailing SL
1/1/2023-4/30/2026
$25 Round Turn Slippage and Commission
Hypothetical Performance Summary
NQ Open Range 2026 is part of the Three System Portfolio