Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (39858)	8/6/2001 5:32:21 PM
From: Timetobuy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

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?

To: Sully- who wrote (39858)	8/6/2001 7:08:20 PM
From: Jill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 65232

Re: RR: Not included in this discussion is how much $ you risk as part of your total capital & how tight your stops are. He does place stops consistently--which people on this porch, when I mentioned its importance recently--told me they couldn't & wouldn't do!!!!!!!! That's insane. In addition, Teresa for instance risks no more than 3% of capital on any given trade, with a stop loss of 5% usually, or 10% at the most. If your T.A. is good & your discipline is good, you will let your winners run when they do run, and get out when they don't. But people's emotions get in the way and theya re afraid to let their winners run (by just moving stops up or down i.e. trailing stops), they'd rather have a sure small profit; and in the meantime, their egos get mixed up with the losses & they hang on waiting for recovery, ie. waiting to make a bad thing good. Attachment to the particular trade. It is VERY VERY VERY hard to combine good t.a. skills with the above discipline. Maybe RR doesn't detail the actual wins & losses but he always tries to inspire people & I'm sure he comes out ahead each year (profit wise)