Position Sizing for Small Accounts: The Math of Survival
By Shakti Tiwari · Educational only · Not investment advice
This article explains position sizing for small accounts: the math of survival from first principles. No live market numbers are quoted; the structure is what lasts.
Why this matters
Position Sizing for Small Accounts: The Math of Survival is one of those subjects that sounds simple until you implement it, at which point the hidden complexity appears. The first version works on a laptop with a tiny file; the second version breaks at 3am when the WebSocket drops, the replay file is half-written, and you cannot tell which ticks you already stored. This article is a structural walkthrough: the concepts, the math where it helps, the code shape where it helps, and the failure modes that quietly cost money or correctness. No live market numbers are quoted because a number without a dated source is decoration, not education. The structure here does not expire, and unlike a specific price level, you can reuse it on the next dataset without re-deriving anything. If you only remember one sentence from this page, make it this: the boring parts are the product, and the interesting parts are a small fraction of what separates a demo from a system.
Core concept
At its heart, position sizing for small accounts: the math of survival is about being honest with your own assumptions. The trap is not that the idea is wrong; it is that a half-implemented version looks right in a demo and breaks in production. We separate the idea from the implementation so you can tell which one you actually have. A clean concept on paper can still produce a broken system if the boundary between 'what I meant' and 'what the code does' is never made explicit. Write the concept as a contract: given X observable at time t, the system produces Y, and any deviation is a bug, not a feature. A contract you can state in one sentence is also one you can test in one assertion, and that testability is the entire difference between an architecture and a wish. The cheaper you make the test, the more often you will run it, and the fewer surprises reach production.
The mechanism in three parts
The mechanism has three parts: what you observe, what you decide, and what you pay. Most tutorials show the first two and silently drop the third. The third is where real edges live or die. We model it explicitly: observation stamped at a bar, decision using only past data, cost taken from the realized fill not the midpoint. If you skip the stamping, you get look-ahead bias. If you skip the past-only rule, you get leakage. If you skip the realized cost, you get a strategy that looks profitable until a real order touches the book. Each omission is small in code and large in consequence. The reason tutorials drop the third part is that it is annoying to model: you need a realistic fill model, a fee schedule, and a tax rule, none of which appear in a clean formula. But the formula is the easy 10%; the fill model is the real 90%.
A structural example
Consider a minimal version. You collect state, compute a signal, act only if a risk budget allows, and log the outcome including the trades you discarded. The discipline is in the ordering: state from the past, signal from that state, cost from the real fill. Reorder any of those and the result becomes a story you tell yourself rather than a measurement. The example is deliberately boring because the point is the skeleton, not the flourish. A skeleton you can defend beats a polished curve built on a lie. When you later replace the minimal pieces with real infrastructure — a real feed, a real executor, a real risk engine — the skeleton stays; only the muscles change. That stability is the value of getting the order right once, up front, before any of the exciting parts are allowed to exist.
Idempotency and replay
Idempotency means running the same ingestion twice produces the same stored result, not duplicates. This matters the moment a connection resets and you replay a file: without a unique key per tick, you double-count volume, corrupt aggregates, and silently bias every feature built on top. The fix is mechanical: hash or sequence each record, upsert on conflict, never append blindly. Replay then becomes safe instead of dangerous, and recovery from a crash is a re-run, not an investigation. Idempotency is not a performance optimization; it is a correctness guarantee. Once you have it, you can stop fearing restarts, and you can stop writing the fragile 'resume from line N' logic that breaks the moment a partial line is written. The key is doing the dedupe at write time, where the data arrives, not at read time, where the damage is already done.
Where it breaks
It breaks at the seams: when the universe changes and you forgot to track it, when volatility regime shifts and your average hid the crash, when a parameter was tuned on the same data you tested on. Each break is a specific code or process error, not a mystery. Naming it is most of the fix. The pattern across all three is the same — a piece of state that should have been explicit was left implicit, and implicit state is where bugs hide. The reason these break at the seams and not in the middle is that the seam is the boundary between two systems you control at different times: the data you collected yesterday and the model you train today. If the boundary is not a first-class object in your code, it will be a first-class source of error in your P&L, and you will not see it until it is expensive.
How to make it robust
Robustness is boring: point-in-time data, walk-forward splits with a frozen holdout, explicit cost including tax on the correct leg, per-regime reporting, and a log of failed variants. None of these are optional if you intend to trust the number. They are the difference between a backtest and a bedtime story. Apply the same standard to the data layer: schema checked on write, duplicates rejected on key, checksums verified on replay. Robustness is not a feature you add at the end; it is a property you preserve at every step. Each shortcut you take 'just to ship' is a loan against a future debugging session, and the interest is paid in the currency you care about most — trust in your own numbers. The discipline is to treat the loan as real even when the deadline feels imaginary.
Common misconception
A common misconception about position sizing for small accounts: the math of survival is that more data or a fancier model fixes a broken loop. It does not. A leaky pipeline with ten years of data is still leaky; a deep model on mispriced fills still loses money. Fix the loop first; the model is the last thing you improve, not the first. The urge to reach for a bigger hammer is natural, because the hammer is visible and the loop is invisible. But the bottleneck is almost always upstream of the model, in the plumbing that decides what the model is allowed to see. Every hour spent on a better architecture while the ingestion is still leaking is an hour spent polishing the wrong thing. The honest move is unglamorous: close the leak, re-run, and only then ask whether the model needs to change.
Connection to the pipeline
This fits the companion stack: idempotent tick ingestion keeps the feature store reproducible, leakage-free XGBoost features keep the model honest, and a governed backtest keeps the loop from lying to you. The articles build on each other; read them in order if you are assembling a real system. Skipping the ingestion discipline to get faster to the model is the most expensive shortcut in quant, because every later step inherits the corruption. The pipeline is a chain, and a chain is only as strong as its weakest link; the ingestion link is also the one closest to the raw truth, so corrupting it poisons everything downstream while leaving the model code looking pristine. That is why the boring layer deserves the most scrutiny, not the least.
What good enough looks like
Good enough is not perfect; it is a system whose known limitations are written down. State the regimes you did not cover, the costs you approximated, the parameters you tuned. A result with honest scars beats a flawless one that hides them. That is the entire point of governed publishing: ship the analysis, keep the caveats attached, and let the reader see the seams instead of a polished surface. Good enough is also reproducible: someone else, with your notes, can rebuild the same number. If only you can reproduce it, it is not an analysis — it is a coincidence you happened to witness. Write the limitations as if the reader is a skeptic version of your future self, because that skeptic is exactly who will eventually read it.
A minimal checklist
Before you trust a pipeline built on this idea, answer: is each record uniquely keyed? Does replay produce identical state? Is observation stamped strictly in the past? Are costs modeled on the real fill? Are regimes reported separately? If any answer is no, the pipeline is a draft. The checklist is short because the failures are few and recurring; the cost of ignoring them is not. A checklist you cannot answer in under a minute is one you will skip under pressure, so keep it to five questions and make each one a yes-or-no. The goal is not completeness; it is a gate you can actually use at 3am when something broke and you need to know whether the data is trustworthy before you trust the alert it just fired.
The cost of skipping it
Skipping the discipline around position sizing for small accounts: the math of survival does not fail loudly. It fails as a slow drift: numbers that looked stable start disagreeing with the book, a replay produces a different P&L than the first run, and nobody can reproduce last month's report. By the time it is noticed, the corruption has propagated into every feature and every model trained on top. The recovery cost is then weeks, not minutes. Doing it right once is cheaper than explaining it forever. The drift is invisible because each individual discrepancy is small enough to blame on noise, and noise is always available as an excuse. The skill is to treat a small discrepancy as a signal, not a nuisance, because the small ones are how the large ones announce themselves quietly, weeks in advance.
A note on tooling
You do not need a heavy framework. A flat file with a unique key, an upsert on conflict, and a checksum per batch is enough for most retail-scale tick stores. The framework temptation is real, because frameworks feel like progress and a flat file feels like a stopgap. But the value is in the contract (unique key, past-only, verified replay), not in the library. A simple script that honors the contract beats a complex platform that violates it. When you outgrow the flat file, you will outgrow it in a way the contract already anticipated, and the migration will be a swap of storage, not a rewrite of assumptions. That is the whole point of respecting the constraint over chasing the tool.
Summary
position sizing for small accounts: the math of survival is not a feature you add; it is a constraint you respect. Stamp observation in the past, key every record, model the real cost, report by regime, and keep the discarded variants. Do those five and the system is defensible. Skip any and you have a story. The market does not care which one you believe; your P&L will. The constraint is tedious precisely because it is always correct and never exciting, and excitement is what your attention naturally follows. Training yourself to protect the tedious parts is the unglamorous core of building systems that survive contact with real data, real outages, and real money. Everything else in this article is a footnote to that one sentence.
Continue Reading
Shakti Tiwari writes about systematic options trading and ML. Follow on X · LinkedIn · GitHub · DEV. #ShaktiTiwariOnAI #NiftyOptions #QuantML #OptionsTrading #SystematicTrading
