The biggest dilemma in contracts is whether to set a larger or smaller stop-loss.

My view has always been simple: there is no one-size-fits-all answer, only what suits you.

A larger stop-loss is indeed more stable; you can withstand many fluctuations, and when the market truly moves, it is easier to capture a complete segment. But the cost is direct: if you misjudge the direction, the losses can be significant, leading to greater psychological pressure.

A smaller stop-loss means less loss per trade, a lighter mindset, and if you're wrong, you can exit, which seems safer. But the problem is that it can be too easy to get shaken out; if the market hasn't really started, you may already be thrown off the bus, making it easy to panic as you trade.

Many people always want to find a perfect stop-loss that 'won't get swept out and can capture big market movements,' but such things are rare in reality. What you really need to choose is not who is stronger, but which rhythm suits you better.

Personally, I lean towards smaller stop-losses for a simple reason: losses are manageable, and my state of mind is less likely to collapse. Being occasionally swept out is fine; as long as the overall direction is correct, you can still recover later. The key is not the wins or losses of individual trades, but whether you can continue to trade stably as a whole.

So don't get tangled up in which is best; first, clarify whether you can accept fluctuations and whether you can repeatedly execute according to the same set of rules.

A stop-loss that suits you is the truly useful stop-loss.