Risk adjusted return (reduce volatility by reducing leverage) is still the highest among any kind of assets in human history

Suppose that the biggest downside risk is 90%, so if you reduce the exposure to 1%, you will have 0.9% maximum risk with 56% return. Normally at 1% maximum risk, 5%-10% return is already top performer

Ok, last time when it was at $200 I called a high of $1600 over the next 6 weeks (it only went to $1240). Here is the timeline this time:

June 20: $900
July 4: $1800
July 11: $3600

That next week it will top out near $4000.

So it is written, let it be known.

Only invest what you can afford to lose.

If you are borrowing to do it, you can't afford to lose.  (As much as I joked about taking a $10,000 0% line of credit on one of my credit card offers if the price went down to the $100s, I seriously wouldn't do it.  I don't borrow to invest.)

That said, I DID borrow against my 401k to invest, but I consider that OK for the following reasons:

1. I have it covered by my outstanding vacation should I lose my job
2. I am paying interest to myself, not somebody else, so it's not a loan in the traditional sense.  In fact, I make MORE money every month.
3. I want to invest a percentage of my "retirement" in bitcoin (retirement in quotes because I plan to retire this year but I can't touch that money for decades) but there is simply no other way to do it

Please don't borrow to invest.  Bitcoin could still easily go to zero.

This isn't gloating. It's ridiculing someone for their extreme whining and entitlement mentality. "Bitcoin didn't make me rich in six months. So you all suck and the world is against me! /emo"

Most of us have lost money at one time or another, but we don't go rattling off like a butt-hurt twelve year old about it.

Ah.. OK! I knew it rang a bell.. that Star Wars MMOG one, right? gotit

But I have to clarify the confusion: I didn't rank anybody's trading abilities. I don't qualify for such judgments. All I put in the table is your recommendations to us dummies . In particular, how often, by your opinion, should we trade. STRAWB advises HODLing, hense the level 1, risto gives one buy area and one sell area per 8-month cycle, hence level 2, you in your recent post gave an example of 3 sells and 3 buys per cycle, hence the level 3. TERA recommends a lot of trading, so the level 4. So no castle handouts from me, sorry.  

Thanks. That's why I started this thread, to provoke veterans into sharing their wisdom.  

You need to select market cap by total supply.

Oda,

I spent an hour last night mapping out all the major resistance levels from here to 1000. 620 was not on my list.

Why is that number significant to you?

If I as the "uber Bull" have been quiet today it is because BitchicksHusband informed me just this morning that he had to "sell off" BTC2 yesterday to pay some bills (partially because of Kings playoff tickets and his monthly payment for his new car ).  I said, "Right during a rally!!?"  I would have rather left some balance on our credit card and kept the coins!  Don't come between a Chick and her coin stash!!!  

But that said, some of us are not planning on selling off until much later than $620!  If I had my way, I would just wait until $100,000 per coin.  

When do you guys think the first sell-off will be?
Will it crash from 600-400 then back up? 800-600? 1000-400? Previous ATH?

How do we agree on a previous ATH when the price was different on all the exchanges plus mtgox is gone? There was about a 1-day period at virwox where you could have sold 1btc for 300,000 SLL and sold those for $1320. So did virwox have the highest ATH at $1320? or do we go by bitstamp or mtgox or huobi ATH?

When comparing the "point of maximum financial risk" chart with a standard bubble chart, do we overlap the risk chart twice? Going through all the risk emotions quickly during the first sell off? So we should hit a brief euphoria phase near the top of the first sell off?

I believe we will continue going through these bubble fractals until the public phase reaches final saturation. In the previous bubbles, each time we reach the public phase it doesn't absorb everyone so there is room left over for more bubbles. Bitcoin won't stop making bubbles until we've blown them in everyone's faces.

Low volatility causes high volatility when inevitably, supply and demand finds itself in disequilibrium, which doesn't need any "reason" to happen.

Many people (including me) were strongly suggesting that Bitcoin would start a rally from the low $400's.
Max Keiser has a TV/Twitter audience so (like him or not) his "pumping" can sometimes have a big effect. If my memory is correct, he was still "screaming to Buy" when BTC was over $1,000/$1,100, is that right/does anyone remember what he was saying then?

Step two: Go one notch down.
That is if you believe you can successfully do dip trading, don't do it! Do calendar trading only. Because most of us overestimate our abilities. Otherwise you'll end up like billyj (all names are made up, all coincidences are coincidental), who was so impressed by TERA's trading that went into leveraged momentum trading himself and lost all his gains for last 20(or so) years of BTC trading.

Sure. Just wait till it reaches 600. You could've gone full in at 400 but why do that if you can spend 200 a coin more. You have to be sure, right?

Indeed, I suspect the bulls are getting over-excited over the exit of the long bear market and we'll soon see more heavy retraces and periods of consolidation before any real bubble-like growth can begin. Parallels might be drawn to 2013, where the bottom ($62) was followed by a sharp move to $100, followed by the first major drop.



Interestingly, applying the ratio of this on our presumed bottom (340) returns 548, so that might just be a local top followed by the expected heavier pullback (unless we go all the way to daily SMA200 in one shot).

Furthermore, I am paying close attention to hourly SMA200 (which lucif dubbed as "the holy grail of all bubbles" and so, by default, must be significant ) to get a sense of possible supports and whatnot. For now it is positioned very close to the long-term log support line, and during the aforementioned 2013 post-bottom drop it was pierced pretty heavily, so it's possible the support line will be tested before taking off properly.



However, I'm not entirely sure 2013 patterns are anything to go by in this case, as we never even crossed daily SMA200 then, so obviously the situation is (to some extent, at least) different. Then again, experience has taught me that ratios in particular tend to be consistent and static, defying common sense, so who knows.

edit: Another interesting thing I just noticed; applying the ratio of the local top (100) and bottom (76) for the above 2013 drop on daily SMA200 (currently around 630) results in 478, which is extremely close to the support line, which (judging by super-fringe and nooby ratio (over)analysis) would seem to support the notion of us going that far before the hypothetical major drop to test the line.

Also I do not believe that price is a random process (certainly not for large-scale motions like these).  The large drops in the past, and most of the rallies, all had obvious external causes.  The Brownian model (with variable variance) is merely the only "technical analysis" model (i.e. model that does not have external factors as inputs) that seems to be validated in practice.  Which means that, indeed, I do not see any reason to believe in TA.