The Martingale "system" has no sound rational basis to even be called a system in the first place, because it does not actually do anything statistically that in any way improves outcome of any arbitrary series of fixed bets.
All the Martingale system actually does is play psychological games with your perception of wins and losses, and appeals to a misguided sense that the individual bets are somehow not statistically-independent events.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure casinos love the Martingale, since it gets you betting more and more on losing bets. They do NOT like any system that may be employed by any gambler in which the gambler walks away with 1 satoshi more than he started with. |
|
|
|
You have to keep doubling and betting until you win. It is mathematically proven at least to be a break even strategy as long as the odds are exactly 50/50 like flipping a coin or black and red on a roulette wheel... so long as there are NO betting limitations. Your point is that a guy would run out of money sooner or later, but overall it is at least a break even strategy... and pretty unlikely that a guy or gal would lose more than 10 times in a row.
You incorporated a 10 time betting limit into your description.. which is NOT part of the theory.. and pretty unlikely.. less than 1 in a 1,000 chance of losing 10 times in a row (actually it is a 1 in 1,024.00262 chance of losing that many times in a row)...
Anyhow, if we use the $1 scenario, the odds are that you would have won more than a thousand by the time you lose 10 in a row.... which if you lose 10 in a row, you are invested $1,023 at that point in time. If you lose one more time (11 times), then you are invested $2039, (1/2048.00524 chance). Anyhow.. sooner or later, you are going to win back your dollar, so long as you keep doubling your bet each time.. it's inevitable.. so long as the odds are 50/50.
Of course, if you do reach that unlucky losing streak of 10 in a row, then you gotta find the capital from somewhere to keep betting and doubling the bet again.. otherwise you will lock in your losses.
The problem, that I already mentioned, is that sometimes peeps will misunderstand or misread the odds or they will accept a betting limit or will deviate from the exact application of doubling the bet each time that you lose, until you win..
After you win, then you start over at $1 again.
Of course, if you were going to start out with $10 or $100, then you would need 10x or 100x more capital, in the event you entered a long losing streak... but it is almost guaranteed that you will NOT lose 10 times in a row, unless the odds really are NOT 50/50.
Here is a spreadsheet if anyone is interested http://imgur.com/JuLDf9H. I made it back when I tried the strategy on Prime dice. After about 50,000 trials on Automated mode it had earned less than it took electricity to run it so long. I think the most times I ever lost was 16 times in a row. I can post the full file if anyone is interested in playing around with it. Wow... I was thinking that maybe it would have been rigged... b/c I was also thinking that in real world application, you would probably come out ahead a little bit, in the long run. |
|
|
|
The Martingale "system" has no sound rational basis to even be called a system in the first place, because it does not actually do anything statistically that in any way improves outcome of any arbitrary series of fixed bets.
All the Martingale system actually does is play psychological games with your perception of wins and losses, and appeals to a misguided sense that the individual bets are somehow not statistically-independent events.
The "system" does account for them being statistically-independent events, but allows a way to systematize so you never walk away from the table at a loss b/c sooner or later you are going to be successful and win back all losses, plus the additional 1 unit bet that you started with. |
|
|
|
Martingale trading is a bulletproof strat
Only if you have an infinite line, infinite time, snd a random market. I.e. never. But it does form an important part of a balanced algo. The martingale fallacy is based on the fact that the human brain is not easily fathoming the speed with which an exponential function increases. You have to use your left brain for that, which takes some thought work. Edit: And you also have to understand the limit of your betting power, and the limit for bets in the casino. Edit2: And to top it up: Your only gain in the end, if you win before the limits, is the size of your first bet. So if you start low, to be able to go on for a large number of rounds, your win is also low. If you start a martingale series with a one dollar bet, and lose many times, you could end up putting thousands on the table, and if you win in the end, your gain is one dollar, the size of the first bet. A Martingale strategy works, so long as the win amount is equal to the bet and the odds are 50/50. With a 1 dollar bet, you are very likely to win your 1 back dollar bet back before you get anywhere near $1000. If the odds are 50/50, then you would have to lose 7 times in a row, to reach into the $100 arena... highly unlikely if the odds truly are 50/50.. the trick in that regard is making sure that you do NOT miscalculate the odds. A Martingale strategy does NOT work. If you do the math, you will find you will lose money long-term unless you have infinite funds and no betting limits. Yes, it's unlikely that you will lose 10 times in a row or whatever, but when you do you are wiped out for an enormous amount of money, and it's that scenario which makes you lose money on the strategy long-term. You have to keep doubling and betting until you win. It is mathematically proven at least to be a break even strategy as long as the odds are exactly 50/50 like flipping a coin or black and red on a roulette wheel... so long as there are NO betting limitations. Your point is that a guy would run out of money sooner or later, but overall it is at least a break even strategy... and pretty unlikely that a guy or gal would lose more than 10 times in a row. You incorporated a 10 time betting limit into your description.. which is NOT part of the theory.. and pretty unlikely.. less than 1 in a 1,000 chance of losing 10 times in a row (actually it is a 1 in 1,024.00262 chance of losing that many times in a row)... Anyhow, if we use the $1 scenario, the odds are that you would have won more than a thousand by the time you lose 10 in a row.... which if you lose 10 in a row, you are invested $1,023 at that point in time. If you lose one more time (11 times), then you are invested $2039, (1/2048.00524 chance). Anyhow.. sooner or later, you are going to win back your dollar, so long as you keep doubling your bet each time.. it's inevitable.. so long as the odds are 50/50. Of course, if you do reach that unlucky losing streak of 10 in a row, then you gotta find the capital from somewhere to keep betting and doubling the bet again.. otherwise you will lock in your losses. The problem, that I already mentioned, is that sometimes peeps will misunderstand or misread the odds or they will accept a betting limit or will deviate from the exact application of doubling the bet each time that you lose, until you win.. After you win, then you start over at $1 again. Of course, if you were going to start out with $10 or $100, then you would need 10x or 100x more capital, in the event you entered a long losing streak... but it is almost guaranteed that you will NOT lose 10 times in a row, unless the odds really are NOT 50/50. Well I am assuming you are talking about in a casino, since nobody in their right mind is going to let you keep doubling your bet on something until you win when the bet is break even. Martingales used in casinos lose just as much as any other strategy, but a lot quicker because you are often risking a lot more money per bet by the end of it. I said 10x because, starting at $1 (which most casinos won't even let you do), after about 8-10 losses you will hit the betting limit. Assuming you are playing true 50-50's, with infinite bankroll and no betting limits, yes you will break even. But you will also break even betting $5 each time in that scenario, so why go bonkers with doubling your bet? As for roulette, you DO realize that that is not a 50-50, right? The 0 (and sometimes 00) screw your odds and give the casino their edge on that bet. It has to be a TRUE 50-50 to break even, and if it's a true 50-50 (and even money bets as well), you will break even long term no matter what. I have never employed it, and I do NOT usually play games of chance (or gamble in that kind of direction) but I suppose that you would do better with a martingales strategy b/c you would cash out, long before you hit those odd ball long negative streak scenarios. .. but yes, you are correct that no one (or casino) is going to let you double from $1 to $500 at one table.. just so you can win back your initial investment... but some online gambling sites may be more permissive. I don't really know too much about this, except posters here are claiming to employ such strategies or variants of such. Anyhow, if you have to play 1000 times before you hit the 10 losses in a row scenario, then on other days, you are going to be taking home dough, no? You may be correct in the end, though that there are some better strategies that can be employed to ensure winning with less risk or effort. |
|
|
|
sure you mean would have realized a loss if they sold during q1 and early q2 2014? I'll perhaps sell this coin I bought in nov if the price is right.
The sale date is fixed (April 01, 2014) and the price too (480 USD/BTC for the red line). The horizontal axis is when the coins were bought. By selling at that price and date, one would have made a profit only if one bought before mid-November. However, the plot considers only mean (L+H)/2 daily prices. There were a few "golden windows of opportunity" when the price momentarily went lower than 480 USD/BTC. (For example, 400 on Feb/25, and ~435 on Mar/30--31). People who bought at those prices and sold on Apr/01 at 480 USD would have achieved a fairly large ROI per year. I would NOT be so foolish as to have bet in December 2013 during an exorbitant price increase and to expect to cash out in the next few months or even in the next year or two at a profit... .. just does NOT make any sense to pick such an opportunistic time to suggest that people are losers in BTC b/c they chose to start investing after or near the end of a bubble.... Yes there are people who invest without foresight and lose money... but that is NOT a very logical investment strategy to begin at the end of a exorbitant price rise and to expect profits in the short term. |
|
|
|
Martingale trading is a bulletproof strat
Only if you have an infinite line, infinite time, snd a random market. I.e. never. But it does form an important part of a balanced algo. The martingale fallacy is based on the fact that the human brain is not easily fathoming the speed with which an exponential function increases. You have to use your left brain for that, which takes some thought work. Edit: And you also have to understand the limit of your betting power, and the limit for bets in the casino. Edit2: And to top it up: Your only gain in the end, if you win before the limits, is the size of your first bet. So if you start low, to be able to go on for a large number of rounds, your win is also low. If you start a martingale series with a one dollar bet, and lose many times, you could end up putting thousands on the table, and if you win in the end, your gain is one dollar, the size of the first bet. A Martingale strategy works, so long as the win amount is equal to the bet and the odds are 50/50. With a 1 dollar bet, you are very likely to win your 1 back dollar bet back before you get anywhere near $1000. If the odds are 50/50, then you would have to lose 7 times in a row, to reach into the $100 arena... highly unlikely if the odds truly are 50/50.. the trick in that regard is making sure that you do NOT miscalculate the odds. A Martingale strategy does NOT work. If you do the math, you will find you will lose money long-term unless you have infinite funds and no betting limits. Yes, it's unlikely that you will lose 10 times in a row or whatever, but when you do you are wiped out for an enormous amount of money, and it's that scenario which makes you lose money on the strategy long-term. You have to keep doubling and betting until you win. It is mathematically proven at least to be a break even strategy as long as the odds are exactly 50/50 like flipping a coin or black and red on a roulette wheel... so long as there are NO betting limitations. Your point is that a guy would run out of money sooner or later, but overall it is at least a break even strategy... and pretty unlikely that a guy or gal would lose more than 10 times in a row. You incorporated a 10 time betting limit into your description.. which is NOT part of the theory.. and pretty unlikely.. less than 1 in a 1,000 chance of losing 10 times in a row (actually it is a 1 in 1,024.00262 chance of losing that many times in a row)... Anyhow, if we use the $1 scenario, the odds are that you would have won more than a thousand by the time you lose 10 in a row.... which if you lose 10 in a row, you are invested $1,023 at that point in time. If you lose one more time (11 times), then you are invested $2039, (1/2048.00524 chance). Anyhow.. sooner or later, you are going to win back your dollar, so long as you keep doubling your bet each time.. it's inevitable.. so long as the odds are 50/50. Of course, if you do reach that unlucky losing streak of 10 in a row, then you gotta find the capital from somewhere to keep betting and doubling the bet again.. otherwise you will lock in your losses. The problem, that I already mentioned, is that sometimes peeps will misunderstand or misread the odds or they will accept a betting limit or will deviate from the exact application of doubling the bet each time that you lose, until you win.. After you win, then you start over at $1 again. Of course, if you were going to start out with $10 or $100, then you would need 10x or 100x more capital, in the event you entered a long losing streak... but it is almost guaranteed that you will NOT lose 10 times in a row, unless the odds really are NOT 50/50. |
|
|
|
the next dump could be brutal
For the dumper yes. Who would dump at these prices? I just market sold 3 BTC @ $465. If this shit continues, I'll double that and then double it again. Then I'll leverage short. You risk losing all your gains. With leverage, you risk going underwater. Your whole bitcoin experience could be a drain on your wealth. It could turn to a liability. To a total fiasco. Why this risky behaviour? Yeah, but if he is saying that he bought in at $10 per BTC.. and in another post he said that his average is below $40 er BTC... He should have a whole hell of a lot of room for playing around and taking risks.... if that is 1,000 or more BTC, which I kind of doubt it to be that much.... but who knows? working with incomplete information, here... and that is why it is difficult to judge another persons investment strategy without knowing some particulars. And we all gotta admit that BTC is very much up and down... even though sometimes it seems fucked like we are on our way in one direction, we get the returns back down to some extent.. and if we get a sudden shoot up.. and then who the hell wants to wait 2 months or even 6 months for a flash crash to recover from that? He could, obviously, conceptually divide his bitcoin stash into two parts, holding one part and speculating with the other part. That would ease his risk a bit. Regardless, shorting the risk part with leverage, it could eat into his hold part, and even erase it, he could still go underwater, both parts taken as a whole. Edit: He also says he has used credit to buy coins, that means he is leveraged also on his longs, which could take hime out also on the long part if he is unlucky. So that pretty much nullifies my argument, I guess. In the end, it depends on the price going up. Which I happen to think is a safe bet, but I understand everybody does not agree on that. The VAST majority of my coins are in cold storage. I am betting my trading stash that the market is going down, but if I am wrong, I win more than I lose. Fair enough, but that means your shorts work against your cold storage. Why leverage both? Why not just do one of the things, and rightsize your holdings? Give the kids some food and have ease of mind. Because I want to learn how to day trade. If I am successful, I will help soak up excess liquidity when the market doesn't need it and I will provide liquidity when the market needs it and in so doing, help stabilize the price which is good for merchants and the general bitcoin using public. If I am an unsuccessful trader, I will be giving money to the people who stabilize bitcoin. One has to appreciate the genius of Satoshi for getting the incentives right. What you are saying kind of sounds like bullshit b/c you can learn day trading by using 1 BTC or less.... However, I suppose that if you are using 100BTC or more, then the dynamics may be a little bit different... possibly? You are NOT really going to make any dents on the bitcoin ecosystem with 100BTC - though yeah, you may be working with a bit more than that; however, I really would think that a guy would need more than 1000 BTC to be a baby whale.. or maybe like a big fish... and maybe whales are generally in the 2,500 BTC and above category? You do NOT really claim to be any kind of whale or even a big fish.. only one that is contributing in some way to the BTC ecosystem... Yeah.. right.. maybe?  What a saga... !!!! Probably, you are getting tired of some of us attempting to analyze your situation.. and maybe you will be having another meltdown, soon?  |
|
|
|
the next dump could be brutal
For the dumper yes. Who would dump at these prices? I just market sold 3 BTC @ $465. If this shit continues, I'll double that and then double it again. Then I'll leverage short. You risk losing all your gains. With leverage, you risk going underwater. Your whole bitcoin experience could be a drain on your wealth. It could turn to a liability. To a total fiasco. Why this risky behaviour? Yeah, but if he is saying that he bought in at $10 per BTC.. and in another post he said that his average is below $40 er BTC... He should have a whole hell of a lot of room for playing around and taking risks.... if that is 1,000 or more BTC, which I kind of doubt it to be that much.... but who knows? working with incomplete information, here... and that is why it is difficult to judge another persons investment strategy without knowing some particulars. And we all gotta admit that BTC is very much up and down... even though sometimes it seems fucked like we are on our way in one direction, we get the returns back down to some extent.. and if we get a sudden shoot up.. and then who the hell wants to wait 2 months or even 6 months for a flash crash to recover from that? He could, obviously, conceptually divide his bitcoin stash into two parts, holding one part and speculating with the other part. That would ease his risk a bit. Regardless, shorting the risk part with leverage, it could eat into his hold part, and even erase it, he could still go underwater, both parts taken as a whole. Edit: He also says he has used credit to buy coins, that means he is leveraged also on his longs, which could take hime out also on the long part if he is unlucky. So that pretty much nullifies my argument, I guess. In the end, it depends on the price going up. Which I happen to think is a safe bet, but I understand everybody does not agree on that. The VAST majority of my coins are in cold storage. I am betting my trading stash that the market is going down, but if I am wrong, I win more than I lose. That does NOT sound like leverage to me.... except maybe to the extent you may have withdrawn more of your first child's college money in order to make your bets.  |
|
|
|
the next dump could be brutal
For the dumper yes. Who would dump at these prices? I just market sold 3 BTC @ $465. If this shit continues, I'll double that and then double it again. Then I'll leverage short. You risk losing all your gains. With leverage, you risk going underwater. Your whole bitcoin experience could be a drain on your wealth. It could turn to a liability. To a total fiasco. Why this risky behaviour? Yeah, but if he is saying that he bought in at $10 per BTC.. and in another post he said that his average is below $40 er BTC... He should have a whole hell of a lot of room for playing around and taking risks.... if that is 1,000 or more BTC, which I kind of doubt it to be that much.... but who knows? working with incomplete information, here... and that is why it is difficult to judge another persons investment strategy without knowing some particulars. And we all gotta admit that BTC is very much up and down... even though sometimes it seems fucked like we are on our way in one direction, we get the returns back down to some extent.. and if we get a sudden shoot up.. and then who the hell wants to wait 2 months or even 6 months for a flash crash to recover from that? He could, obviously, conceptually divide his bitcoin stash into two parts, holding one part and speculating with the other part. That would ease his risk a bit. Regardless, shorting the risk part with leverage, it could eat into his hold part, and even erase it, he could still go underwater, both parts taken as a whole. Edit: He also says he has used credit to buy coins, that means he is leveraged also on his longs, which could take hime out also on the long part if he is unlucky. So that pretty much nullifies my argument, I guess. In the end, it depends on the price going up. Which I happen to think is a safe bet, but I understand everybody does not agree on that.I doubt that we really have fair and balanced reporting in this thread... which sometimes gets the FUD screaming way too disproportionately to the reality of the Bitcoin situation. Yes, it is good to have some reality checks and some analysis of downtrends; however, most people who are truly knowledgeable about BTC (even some of the so called bears) recognize the long-term bullish potential of BTC.. whether we getting to some stable price point of $600 for the long term or $1,000 or $10,000 or $100,000. Of course there are going to be some government attacks, banking industry attacks and other contrarians, but there seem to be way too many resources going into BTC networks for us to fall short of some kind of decently high returns on our current investments of anything below $1000 per BTC.. minimally in the couple thousand range with a much higher potential.. as most of the knowledgeable ones in this thread and in the BTC sphere seem to recognize... even though there is some short term... back and forth and even propaganda within this thread... and bitcointalk seems to have a pretty high tolerance regarding the content of posts... even if some of the contents seem to be pretty apparently untrue or seem to be for incitement purposes. |
|
|
|
Looking at the trades, which maybe is a perverse hobby of mine, I am regularly surprised at how much fiat people have ready on the exchanges for buying in the weekends. Why wait? Why not just buy as soon as the fiat arrives. At least, why not put up an order somewhere below the latest price to take advantage of a dump?
I think that these investors have already calculated a pattern in which no matter what - on average, and if you play the odds of averages, BTC prices are lower on the weekends, and that they do NOT want to show their hands regarding the quantity of their fiat and that their fiat is going to leverage a lot more on the weekends, as well... |
|
|
|
Martingale trading is a bulletproof strat
Only if you have an infinite line, infinite time, snd a random market. I.e. never. But it does form an important part of a balanced algo. The martingale fallacy is based on the fact that the human brain is not easily fathoming the speed with which an exponential function increases. You have to use your left brain for that, which takes some thought work. Edit: And you also have to understand the limit of your betting power, and the limit for bets in the casino. Edit2: And to top it up: Your only gain in the end, if you win before the limits, is the size of your first bet. So if you start low, to be able to go on for a large number of rounds, your win is also low. If you start a martingale series with a one dollar bet, and lose many times, you could end up putting thousands on the table, and if you win in the end, your gain is one dollar, the size of the first bet. A Martingale strategy works, so long as the win amount is equal to the bet and the odds are 50/50. With a 1 dollar bet, you are very likely to win your 1 back dollar bet back before you get anywhere near $1000. If the odds are 50/50, then you would have to lose 7 times in a row, to reach into the $100 arena... highly unlikely if the odds truly are 50/50.. the trick in that regard is making sure that you do NOT miscalculate the odds. |
|
|
|
the next dump could be brutal
For the dumper yes. Who would dump at these prices? I just market sold 3 BTC @ $465. If this shit continues, I'll double that and then double it again. Then I'll leverage short. You risk losing all your gains. With leverage, you risk going underwater. Your whole bitcoin experience could be a drain on your wealth. It could turn to a liability. To a total fiasco. Why this risky behaviour? Yeah, but if he is saying that he bought in at $10 per BTC.. and in another post he said that his average is below $40 er BTC... He should have a whole hell of a lot of room for playing around and taking risks.... if that is 1,000 or more BTC, which I kind of doubt it to be that much.... but who knows? working with incomplete information, here... and that is why it is difficult to judge another persons investment strategy without knowing some particulars. And we all gotta admit that BTC is very much up and down... even though sometimes it seems fucked like we are on our way in one direction, we get the returns back down to some extent.. and if we get a sudden shoot up.. and then who the hell wants to wait 2 months or even 6 months for a flash crash to recover from that? |
|
|
|
the next dump could be brutal
For the dumper yes. Who would dump at these prices? I just market sold 3 BTC @ $465. If this shit continues, I'll double that and then double it again. Then I'll leverage short. This doesn't make any sense. One should make decisions based on the current market, not "I am going to chase losses with leverage if I am wrong". I made $400 today locked in. That's not "if the market holds". That's USD. and if the market keeps going up, I'll lock in more. I hope it does. I will have tens of thousands of dollars to jump back on the gravy train if a clear reversal materializes. What exactly would be sufficient evidence or indication of a clear reversal? here my thoughts. If we were to break 500 then it's looking good. but if you follow the current trend line that will take us to April 15th to reach $500. Volume on the uptrend will run-out long before this. in about 18 hours is a rough guess. When we go down next time, if the bottom is less then the last time (416 stamp, then the charts may show a reverse shoulder), 3 dips, with the lowest dip in the middle... then you will see a real bullish pump and we may be out of the woods. We may get some more bad news and China ban bitcoin again. Or there may be some good news. I have a difficult time envisioning a BTC dip to less than $425 on stamp in the next 18 hours, absent some additional negative news from China or wherever, and since people are saying that it is a holiday in China on Monday, we are less likely to get negative news or even clarification of any matters from China, until Tuesday. The reason that I doubt lower BTC price dips is b/c it seems that the China FUD (or whatever we are calling it these days) seems to have been milked to its utmost. To a large extent, there does NOT seem to be any major / material restrictions from fiat getting into exchanges from what was already speculated in early December. Surely it seems that some of the fiat funding avenues may have dried up, but the Chinese seem to have various alternative means to get fiat in and out of exchanges - at least the chinese people who are mostly into bitcoin... and let's face it... bitcoin in china is not trickling down to the masses of regular chinese people - instead, it is .01%-ish of the chinese population who are speculating with bitcoin in china - and these guys/gals are NOT likely going to be easily altered by a few restrictions, here and there... except to potentially cause some FUD, to the extent that any additional FUD can be milked out of these kinds of loosey goosey facts. |
|
|
|
Have we witnessed billyjoeallen go full retard?? (based on his last post)
Because he doesnt follow lock-step what the Hodl herd wants, and has the discipline to change views (even if short-term) after trial and error ? Im glad i dont follow your pack, or any pack for that matter, it's a liberating feeling  There's NO mandate that you have to HODL... I resemble that statement, so much.... !!! You can also BUY, BUY, BUY. Either of them are good. Yeh, yeh we've heard it a zillion times...buy, buy, buy....cheap, cheap, cheap...any coin is a cheap coin...it could be at 10K and bultards would be saying it's cheap. Fortunately, i was canny enough to block out the snake oil pitches, and get out at 600-950 after buying in at 125. I consider anything below $1000 to be pretty good value.. but of course it is all relative. Who would buy a BTC at $1000, if they are on sale for $458-ish.. while supplies last? Also, if you are out of BTC and you are NOT convinced, then why you hanging out here? You want to save some of us from ourselves, or do you have some kind of vested interest to hang around these parts? |
|
|
|
 it's sneaking up like nobody noticed. That trendline formed a lil wedge. Did you switch to Bitstamp now that your upwards support line on Huobi has been broken? Nice try!  Now that second chart (err.. third chart I guess, the very bottom one), looks extremely bullish to me. I don't know the terms but this guy on youtube told me that the more times you test a resistance level, the more likely it is that you will break through... My gut is still uncertain, we could see sub-400 easy, but my mind is made up. That is why I think that it is possible to break $420.. but getting less and less likely. $420 was broken only a few times.. and we got down to $418-ish... Anyhow, $400 has not been tested yet.. so presumptuous for anyone to be suggesting that $400 tested several times... |
|
|
|
Have we witnessed billyjoeallen go full retard?? (based on his last post)
Because he doesnt follow lock-step what the Hodl herd wants, and has the discipline to change views (even if short-term) after trial and error ? Im glad i dont follow your pack, or any pack for that matter, it's a liberating feeling There's NO mandate that you have to HODL... I resemble that statement, so much.... !!! You can also BUY, BUY, BUY. Either of them are good. |
|
|
|
I went to bed feeling I'd wake up to this price, starting to feeling safer as does the market. Monday could be make or break, as no bad news = continued recovery
yeah it feels like calm before the storm. although I closed some of my position just so I could get a good sleep. You sleep better in BTC or in fiat?... need I ask?  |
|
|
|
YES!!! someone finally bought it on bitfinex. Now quick, somebody dump so I can buy in back @ $447.
What about hodling like a BTC pro. And let the dumping behind us. You had your chance a few times the last weeks. Yeah, I held like a pro and saw my net worth plummet by two thirds. Whores are pros. They get fucked. So did I. If this little rally continues, you'll see a lot more of my coins in else's pockets and If I don't get the chance to buy them back cheaper, I'm tempted to walk away and spend the cash on coke and "pros". Ok. I don't know what people do exactly or how they trade.. however, let's take some of the information that you already provided to us and then speculate a little. Let's say for example that you bet wrong b/c you were betting that BTC prices would go to sub $400. Accordingly, you sold 100 BTC at $430. From info you provided, we already know that your average BTC buy in price is less than $40. Therefore, your total buy in price for 100 BTC is $4,000, but your sell price is $43,000. You bet wrong, and the train leaves the station, and at some point you say, "shit, i better get on this train or I am going to be left when they get to the rocket liftoff." Therefore, you buy back in at $500 rather than $400. You are only able to buy 86 BTC with your $43,000 rather than 107.5 BTC at $400. You are still ahead by $39,000 with your initial investment, even though you could have been ahead by more. In this hypothetical, you lost $4000, but the difference in what you could have gained is 21.5 BTC. Yet, that is part of the risk in taking chances. NO? I know that I am speculating on the numbers, and maybe you bet 500BTC but the same theory applies - just multiply by 5. There is still a fairly decent chance that prices could reach $429 again before the weekend is up... ... maybe 40% chance? That's pretty close, yes. $429 his weekend is more like a 15% chance, but over the next two weeks it's more like a 55% chance. Again, we have somewhat opposing presumptions. I am thinking that the chances are higher that we would hit $429 in the shorter term, and the more that time passes.. the more likely the train is going to leave the station never to return to these sub $500 prices.... except possibly a flash crash here or there or some other aberrations in downward price manipulation... When we start to get to some of these higher price platform territories... we NOT coming back... except maybe flashing. |
|
|
|
Clearly 1a starting from nov.
true. but the current situation? The "current" situation starts from any point before November as easily as it as it starts from any point after December. It is just arbitrary to select one to the exclusion of the other in order to arrive at a simple conclusion... Yes, we can attempt to predict short term on more current, but both short and long term predictions is also affected by more than just the short-term snapshot. |
|
|
|
YES!!! someone finally bought it on bitfinex. Now quick, somebody dump so I can buy in back @ $447.
What about hodling like a BTC pro. And let the dumping behind us. You had your chance a few times the last weeks. Yeah, I held like a pro and saw my net worth plummet by two thirds. Whores are pros. They get fucked. So did I. If this little rally continues, you'll see a lot more of my coins in else's pockets and If I don't get the chance to buy them back cheaper, I'm tempted to walk away and spend the cash on coke and "pros". Ok. I don't know what people do exactly or how they trade.. however, let's take some of the information that you already provided to us and then speculate a little. Let's say for example that you bet wrong b/c you were betting that BTC prices would go to sub $400. Accordingly, you sold 100 BTC at $430. From info you provided, we already know that your average BTC buy in price is less than $40. Therefore, your total buy in price for 100 BTC is $4,000, but your sell price is $43,000. You bet wrong, and the train leaves the station, and at some point you say, "shit, i better get on this train or I am going to be left when they get to the rocket liftoff." Therefore, you buy back in at $500 rather than $400. You are only able to buy 86 BTC with your $43,000 rather than 107.5 BTC at $400. You are still ahead by $39,000 with your initial investment, even though you could have been ahead by more. In this hypothetical, you lost $4000, but the difference in what you could have gained is 21.5 BTC. Yet, that is part of the risk in taking chances. NO? I know that I am speculating on the numbers, and maybe you bet 500BTC but the same theory applies - just multiply by 5. There is still a fairly decent chance that prices could reach $429 again before the weekend is up... ... maybe 40% chance? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
