I was commenting on your math.
Your assumption is the following if I understand:
10,000 * 1.2 = 12,000
12,000 * 1.2 = 14,400
14,400 * 1.2 = 17,280
17,280 * 1.2 = 20,736
20,736 * 1.2 = 24,883
24,883 * 1.2 = 29,859
29,859 * 1.2 = 35,830
35,830 * 1.2 = 42,996
42,996 * 1.2 = 51,595
51,595 * 1.2 = 61,914
61,914 * 1.2 = 74,296
74,296 * 1.2 = 89,156
Correct? And yet he has losses, as does ANY trader or gambler. So is it fair to tout those gains as if they were a sure thing? That can ONLY happen if he wins every time. And yet they are not daytrades? Then what happens on gap downs the next day? What would happen if the second to the last trade instead was covered for a 20% loss on a gap the next day? Putting the whole pot on the table would then be only $49531 and what if that was then put on the table and had a 5% loss? It would then be only $47,054 and that assumes that the other 10 were ALL winners.
Wade Cook had good gains when everything went right too.
Why don't you want anyone to look at your math if this is a sure thing? Cheerleading is good! Rah! Rah! Pointing out it's not a sure thing is BAD! Nice to know you only want to hear one side.
As for ridicule? Where do you get that? I'm adding on to YOUR math. It's clear to me that if I make the same assumptions that you do, that turning $100,000 into $32 million in two years is indeed possible using RR's method. Why don't you agree with it? It's using the same math you are or are you now saying that it's not possible? |
