|
By the way, what's with the strange 1.14 l format?
|
|
|
|
 indeed, my 15k hat feels so uncomfortable... I feel like changing it at times but I'm afraid it will capitulate the price to new lows, so I'm taking one for the team. Thank you d_eddie! We appreciate your hard work and dedication. Stay focused.  I don't want to get lovey-dovey... but thank you for the fancy hats! I can't wait to see how hard it will be to fit 6 digits in there.  |
|
|
|
indeed, my 15k hat feels so uncomfortable... I feel like changing it at times but I'm afraid it will capitulate the price to new lows, so I'm taking one for the team.
|
|
|
|
Mathematically you guys could be right, you are working on finding the optimum place where you can profit no matter which direction bitcoin goes, I am certain it would be very difficult to find such a spot but it could be totally possible so I can't say it is impossible, you can do it or at the worst you will have less of a loss when it moves one direction because you are hedged towards both sides so you don't gain too much but you don't lose too much neither.
However, this is a method that can be done by very few people, just like many smart people you guys are forgetting that there are people like me who see this as magic or foreign language and not understand one bit which is why it would never get too much mass attention from people, only other smart people like you.
I doubt it is possible to find a magical system that works no matter what. It's still largely a matter of putting work into it, just like an ordinary non-omniscient guy has to do. The double position maneuver doubles the tools at my disposal, and it gains me headroom: when the "losing" position gets squeezed, I close the "winning" position and gain some margin breathing space. In times of recurrent fuckery with barts and whatnots, it's an option that shouldn't be dismissed without a little thought. I often get to profit on both edges of the bart, or at least on one of the two. |
|
|
|
I started doing this as a hedge (to mitigate damage).
It is not a hedge and certainly you don't mitigate any damage! Lets say you hold 5 bitcoins short and 7 bitcoins long positions. I hold 2 bitcoins long position. Price movement in either direction will bring both of us one and the same profit or loss. The only difference between us is that I pay rollover fee for 2 bitcoins while you pay rollover fees for 12 bitcoins. I see your point. It was made by fillippone just a few days ago. It is valid in certain conditions, but not in others. Rollover fees depend on the exchange. They could be null. There could be an advantage using limits order (gaining a small fee). There could be funding (interest) paid to those who have open positions on a certain side by those on the opposite side. It all adds up and can be used to our advantage, but it's not an inherent property of this system. That's why I'm keeping these accessory costs or benefits out of the equation. Maybe it all boils down to whether we consider unrealized P&L as real. I don't: it ain't over until the fat lady sings - that is, until I choose to close a position. Can you see the time factor advantage that is gained? Imagine she goes up and down just as she likes to do. When she goes down I cash out the short (and/or increase the long with a better entry), when she goes up I cash out the long (and/or increase the short with a better entry). Whenever I'm above parity I can choose to end the game and close both positions together, or taper one while the other improves, or whatever my SOMA analysis suggests. I can't do that if I only hold one side. I've asked for collective help in wrapping up these concepts in a solid framework, but there are no takers yet. All I know is I've managed to nurse a thin stream of income even during bear moves or bear markets. At the moment, I can lose all my play stash and I'll stay in overall profit. Did I just get lucky? It might be, but it's too consistent IMHO. It looks unlikely. |
|
|
|
What you say sounds true if taken literally and out of context, but I know I consistently gained from this, at varying rates according to market volatility and predictability.
You've gained from this because price moves within range. If price gets on a trend you'll lose twice as much you've gained during the range trading. Holding both short and long positions is very expensive way to purchase adrenaline. Bungee jumping is much cheaper and will get you more adrenaline. Even if price gets on a trend, it's never a one way march. There are bound to be waves on several time periods. And I don't do it for the adrenaline. If I could kill the emotion factor altogether, I would. I started doing this as a hedge (to mitigate damage). I turned it into a ladder à la JJG/jbreher, only doubled: one up, one down. Now I don't want to run the negative ladder anymore, so it's morphed back into hedging when she goes down, so I get some relief with my long, which I will hopefully close in profit, or at least with a lesser loss than what I have gained scraping scalps on the short. |
|
|
|
Short closed with tiny profit. Long still suffering. Wait and see.
Holding equal size of both short and long positions at the same time is very stupid indeed. You just pay rollover fees on both sides without any chance to make profit or loss. What you say sounds true if taken literally and out of context, but I know I consistently gained from this, at varying rates according to market volatility and predictability. I'm not talking about life changing money, or even about a significant multiple of the play stash for each trade. It's several small trades adding up, most of which (an overwhelming ~90+% ballpark) yield nonnegative profit. So how can that be if what you say is correct? The answer, again, is in the underlying assumptions. 1) Not necessarily equal size 2) Not necessarily open at the same time 3) Not closed at the same time 4) Some exchanges award you maker rebates (negative fees) if you are a market maker (use limit orders only). |
|
|
|
is there enough cash for $50k BTC. I mean, if holders will sell at $50k, can exchanges and all others business pay sellers?
If the supply and demand is real, then yes they should have the funds, if someone sells at 50k, someone else buys at 50k, unless the exchange platforms bring most of the liquidity themselves, but don't have any reliable info about this. I bet a few exchanges perform arbitrage too. "A few"?  |
|
|
|
(I am posting the reply out here. I don't want to stray OT in the WO by talking too much about bitcoin prices.  ) Short closed with tiny profit. Long still suffering. Wait and see.
which approach? (a) or (b)? Similar to (b), but in practice the positions aren't necessarily open together. The ideal situation, of course, is to have the short's entry point higher than the long's. Which means there's an area where both position are gaining. This is a rare occurence for me, however. Most frequently, the short is open when I fear or smell a downtrend, so the entry point is normally lower than the long's. so now I have two positions (long and short) opened and there is a soft bullish momentum. what should I do? the long position is in profit and the short position is in loss. should I wait until the price goes to the resistance of the range (high at $8471.6) and then close the long positions in profit and hope we will have no break-out above the resistance? maybe then the price will go down again and I have to wait until the short position is at least in break-even (+/- 0 points) to close it too. this is called range trading and works very well in a defined range but woe there is a break-out with massive momentum - then it will get ugly!
the conclusion for me about this trading style is: at the start you don't have to decide about the trading direction (long or short) when you do open the positions but this means not it is easy money because you will get later at the point where you must make a decision about to close the long position or not at the resistance point (high at $8471.6) to finish later with a profit.
Indeed, it can be seen as two opposing range trades. There is no solution to the dilemma - When to cash out? When to give up? - but holding both ends helps with working in stages towards an acceptable solution (that is, positive profit). A simple, reasonably effective way to limit serious damage if a breakout occurs is to place stops just outside the range. |
|
|
|
|
Short closed with tiny profit. Long still suffering. Wait and see.
|
|
|
|
Good memories!
If only I had those too...Those would make my wankbank pretty useless!
I do have some pretty memories, but let me break it to you. Don't trash your wankbank(TM) yet. |
|
|
|
|
^^ This seems a different system, in that the result is only one position - either long or short, depending on the side of the breakout (high or low respectively). Or am I misunderstanding?
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a duet
It's a chamber ensemble!
Gyrsur treads "out there".
I'd give you a +WOs for bothering to open a thread in the wilderness, but they call WOs a fork in these here parts.
|
|
|
|
perhaps he is/was a writer in some capacity?
To cut it as a writer you need a few skills. An overwhelming barrage of words that causes instant glazing and possible convulsions is not one of them and not conducive to a successful career. Feel free to give it a whirl all the same. I'd like to meet Uncle D just to hear him say something like that. |
|
|
|
Lambie said last time!
No more cheap corn, if his right.
Lets go to 5 dig.
Een uitlje knappen...
struck by lightning on Sunday...
Vegeta been heard?
Damn, that was Flemish...
What would it be in English?
Who's first to tell me.
*In Belgium its a saying*
Wow, 3 in a row Tasty, and on a Sunday! Practice makes perfect. +1 WOsMerit |
|
|
|
after the Craig wright stalling is done, this being a civil case and all, can't he say the so-called trustees have run off
with the keys for the supposed satoshi tulip fund and simply declare bankruptcy?
Thus clearing his situation with the court and the Australian Tax Authorities....for whatever BSV or whatnot he has
managed to scam so far?
Seems to me that is his only out, if as most suspect, he has no 'last man standing' to access the so-called Tulip Fund
of the development coins of bitcoin until Jan 1st, 2020.
Only one problem with this: there isn't a Tulip Trust fund. Oh, and about this hv_ tool. He is totally delusional and not worth quoting.
You're right. Usually when he's wrong on just 1 count I can let it slip, but being entirely wrong about everything forced me to respond. I would be best to put him on ignore. And I would merit your post if I could but I am flush out for the moment. So have an honorary +1 WOmerit instead. I, too, must thank Ross for actually buying the first time. Then I got addicted. No, not to the dangerous drugs. +1 WOsMerit to Krubster from me too, and a boring one asap. |
|
|
|
-snips contrived-Yes, if we were machines.
But death also defines life
No feelings, no life
I owe you one. And here it is. I'm clean of debt. |
|
|
|
Liking this duet I'm digging through oldish posts digesting takes time My own assumptions? "I'll never hit that wall because I keep my gameplay far from the sidelines." Taken to extremes: if I had infinite capital, I would not worry a bit.
If we had infinite capital, infinite time we would all be rich. Capital is finite and time is finite. I don't know if it is better this way, but it surely so much more funny. You're right fillippone, hence the worry (not without the occasional "fun", I must admit). 100x leverage doesn't make my capital "infinite" unless my position is under 1/100 of my play stash (and even then, nonlinearities and verlakkerijen ensue if said stash is within 2-3 orders of magnitude of the exchange's actual open interest). Nothing will make my time infinite (well, maybe a team in the goossens sense - but then, infinte team turnover becomes a necessity and we don't want to go there, do we). Both "stashes" are finite indeed - and both have hard upper bounds of sorts. So I see your point, but you must admit my view has merit too. You earlier said which is the "best" (only, actually) way of thinking. If you are trading with linear assets there's no other other way to sum all of your positions and think about only as a SUM. the worst you can think is where you bought some corn and you have to sell it above that level to gain.
( TL;DR +10 long, -1 short = +10 - 1 = +9 long )
It might be the worse way in certain cases, but in my own case it made me real BTC. So where's the catch? Me not considering the positions as summable? If it's that, it's a powerful tool! Your view is the best under certain assumptions: same instrument, closed at the same time, linear. Under others, (mainly: different time span) it isn't. Which doesn't imply the second view is better. It does become strictly better if you have infinite capital and time, and infinitely better if you also have perfect forward information. The option of removing dough from the table is a big help too, as it allows me to chicken out whenever I fancy. Agreed, it's a derivative play involving manual labor. Summing up, my numbers say that even with finite resources, the "second" system can be put to work. And I'm pretty sure my own set of rules is not the only one that can produce statistical profit in waters such as those we are sailing atm. Maybe someone is able to formalize this in an orthodox way, or to make more sense somehow. You? Hairy? Marcus? V8? Any others? #haiku |
|
|
|
|
Apparently I got lucky with my sophisticated SOMA analysis. I could have made the short even larger - in the same ballpark as (or bigger than) the long - and profit double (or more). Not closing it yet, because my SOMA tools do not provide any timing info on the incoming run up yet.
This does not mean I'm happy.
|
|
|
|
Neat ~100$ spike up. This smells like stop hunting on the way down. My short got just a tad bigger.
I realize we are talking pocket change here. But this is a high risk strategy in the October before halvening. Going short in a secular bull market pays poorly. It's already green again. I placed a stop so it closes in the green. And I really hope it pays very poorly indeed. And apart from my cold stash, which is intrinsically long, I've got a margin long about twice as large as this short. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
