2026-04-28

Yes. The lesson is not “be more stubborn on shorts.” The lesson is “size shorts small enough that you can follow the actual thesis.” Right now the pattern sounds like this: 1. You identify a crowded/high-beta name extended enough to short. 2. You enter too large relative to your emotional tolerance. 3. The first sharp drop gives relief. 4. You cover near the first real break because you want the stress gone. 5. Then the trade keeps working without you. That is a sizing and process problem, not an idea problem. For shorts like PLTR / OKLO, the rule should be: - Starter short only: size must be small enough that a squeeze does not force emotional covering. - Predefine invalidation: not “I feel scared,” but a level, catalyst, or trend reclaim. - Predefine partials: cover some into the first flush, but keep a core if the thesis is still intact. - No full cover just because you nailed the first top. Full cover only if the setup is invalidated or risk/reward is no longer attractive. - If you cannot sleep with the short, it is too big. This also connects to your broader issue: you want to be underallocated and keep optionality, but then you create stress by sizing individual ideas too aggressively. Shorts are especially dangerous because oversized shorts make you manage P&L pain instead of pattern quality. Concrete rule: max initial short size should be small enough that you are willing to hold through one ugly squeeze without changing the plan. If that number feels “too small,” that is exactly the point. The money is made by staying in the trade, not by proving conviction on entry. Follow-up: what is the max short size, as a % of portfolio, that you can hold without panic-covering?