Search results

"Don't lose money." Doesn't everybody operate with this principle? Seems redundant. A truism.

I'm guessing the risk you usually take on with smaller positions can't be safely scaled up?

Profits accumulated is a funny idea that I have been trying to actually get past actually. Should previous trades be given any consideration in deciding how to make the next trade? For risk management purposes, yes, but for decision-making, it can color our judgment how green or red we are for...

What makes a good exit?

Indeed; if there is a trend, the odds that you are going to "catch the knife" and get the turn perfectly are much slimmer than the odds you'll catch a little bit more of the momentum.

So, when do you close the position? If you let it go on forever, it's not really trading anymore, no? Also, if we consider everyone else in the market in aggregate, doesn't everybody, even the biggest and the best, face these same adversaries? It doesn't matter how big you are, the collective...

Whether it's refining your automated system, refining your mental hangups, working out a new system, or just studying a new market, what are you currently trying to improve?

Practical advice would be to pick stocks that are undervalued, regardless of his opinions.

Yeah, how can you hope to predict such things as this? For all we know, tomorrow he'll say, "I changed my mind. Biotech profits shouldn't be regulated."

VIX and SPX are not directly inversely correlated. It's the fear index, a measurement of options. Going up is good, it reduces fear and volatility. Going up too much too quickly, like it did today, would result in an increase in VIX as people buy protective options because they don't believe...

Today around 3:50, my TWS sort of froze up as well. Everything was updating fine, but two market orders I sent in returned errors, that they weren't yet received by the exchange. I restarted TWS and found that both market orders had indeed gone thru, and that for some reason TWS hadn't received...

Indeed, something is only overbought if everybody else thinks so, and right now, there seem to be plenty of buyers and bears getting squeezed.

What's your timeline estimate?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm being genuine, and if that's how you'd like to go about a discussion that I started, I guess.

Sure, of course they would try to kill everyone, if it were worth it. I'm saying why assume it will be worth it? And I am not trying to be purposefully obtuse about human nature. But sincerely, what do they stand to gain? In a world of full automation, wealth ceases having meaning, because...

We're assuming that there's going to be scarcity worth eliminating people for once automation drives the cost of labor away. We currently have plenty of empty housing, waste 50% of our food, etc... who's to say that they'll even need to eliminate people? And even then, as you both demonstrate...

Not entirely convinced by this. They need customers, don't they? Genocide would be bad for business. Who would we be left with a massive automated infrastructure making things for? Also, if anything, that could be an argument for the public seizing the means of production sooner rather than later.

I'll agree to not call capitalism any more nefarious than socialism, as they're both simply systems that could be poorly implemented by nefarious humans, but I digress. But, everybody wants business to succeed, nobody wants to hamstring business. Yes, too high of labor standards will hamstring...

I think it's all moot and similar to the question of "How much should you risk?" Well, it depends on how sure you are. If you are quite sure, you should go max leverage every trade. If not, smaller, and incrementally.

Whether it would cause inflation depends on implementation and circumstance. The pool of money is still the same, it is essentially redistribution, so no direct inflation. Companies would also get more customers because everybody has more money. To say which way the balance would swing is not...