Sometimes I do just feel people (not necessarily yourself) lack a basic understanding of statistics, thinking that one indicator or another can 100% predict a bottom, instead of realising the basics that it doesn't matter how accurate something has been up until now, it only makes it accurate to a certain percentage that will always by default be less than 100% (otherwise it wouldn't be statistical but a form of fortune telling).
Ok, then let's test those statistics...
Out of all your, how do we call them assumptions, predictions, analysis, coin tosses, drawing, how many have proven to be correct, statically speaking?
Because I clearly remember how 30k was the bottom, 25k was the bottom and of course, I will never forget 100k by 2021!
Let's have a look shall we?
1. For sure in January
I thought $34.4K was the bottom. I was about $1.4K / 2 days off the low, but
reinforced my opinion a day later. Price rallied +35% within two weeks as well as +40% to $48K thereafter.
2. Never thought $30K would be the bottom (again) in May (4 months later), was much less convinced, but have a big posting gap between January and May when price was between $33K an $48K.
3. Are you referring to
Was $25K the bottom? where I said
"I'm not really suggesting the bottom is already in". Guess you failed to understand the point of that topic; it was pointing out how $25K
could be the bottom, not that
it was the bottom, because it well could of been. But I understand how it fits your narrative to accuse me of being wrong when I wasn't.
4. Sure I thought $100K by 2021, many others did as well, I have no shame in that! I was expecting a blow-off top that never happened, so be it.
The moment you nail 2/3 of the predictions it means just that the coin you're tossing is dented and you're lucky.
You think a dented coin means you can get 2/3 of predictions correct when it's tossed? Oh dear...
You're actually way off though.
I target 1:4 risk:reward, I only ever aim to be right minimum 50% of the time So that means for example where twice I lose 10% twice I can gain 40%, overall it works out as +58% roughly speaking (1 x 0.9 x 0.9 x 1.4 x 1.4). If I start getting trading to 60-65% accuracy, then I consider 1:3 risk:reward, but it's less profitable at only up to +52% per 4 trades so don't bother so much.
Like many, you are confusing the idea of being right the majority of the time in order to be able to trade successfully. Even someone who is wrong 80% of the time targeting some crazy 1:50 risk:reward would be far more profitable than the usual "coin flip" with 1:4 risk:reward at an insane 300% per 5 trades. But personally I avoid degen leverage trading like that, even if it can be very profitable.
The irony here being if someone is right 80% of the time, and targeting some degenerate 1:1 risk:reward, they are only making 30% per 5 trades... so much less.
You say that, but 4 out of the 5 times the indicator has left the so-called capitulation level (>0%) then the bottom has been in; 2011, 2015, 2019 and 2020. Only in 2014 price re-capitulated after returning to "hope/fear". So in very simple statistics, without accounting for any other variables (as obviously this indicator doesn't do this), then it's only 80% accurate at best (4 out of 5 times correct).
Oh yeah, it was 80% accurate, what an achievement, but there is one tricky thing about it, when was this "indicator" discovered? I have a feeling that it was in 2020
So it's not an indicator as much as a historic pattern, and if you can't figure the difference between those two you should go over the first sentence, I don't remember it well, you mentioned previously something about understanding statistics
The indicator is based on historic price movements, yes, because it's obviously been back tested for accuracy
It being created in 2020, or 2010, or 2000 makes little to no difference to it's actual accuracy, even if a lot of accuracy is retrospective.
For sure this indicator is far from perfect, it should really be "realized price" as opposed to the actual realized price. It definitely mis-counts all consolidation or breaking up of coins by the same owner, such as exchanges most notably. Fortunately exchanges move around coins so quickly (same day usually I noticed) that it wouldn't affect this "realized price" as much as you think it would.
Bruh, I just gave examples for exchanges, and if that is not enough then how about casinos? What about bitcoin tumblers? Do you know what volume can somebody trying to mix 1000 coins can generate? Today you have 300k coins getting transferred (not counting change), you honestly think even 10% of those 6 billion!!! are coins that have been "purchased" today?
I'm not arguing with any of these examples, as I'm not defending this so-called realized price as the
actual realized price, as I already said. I'm just highlighting this indicator for it's historic relevance to price movements, not it's accuracy in predicting a realized price for Bitcoin that's obviously impossible (based on your examples alone). The point is, it's not so relevant how accurate this price is (as it's probably not very accurate), it's only supposed to be relevant how accurate this
indicator has been in identifying capitulations as well as bottoms, which doesn't appear to depend on an accurate realized price what so ever.
Poll
