Could it be this easy?

[merdontv]

1 and 2 - See how

everything is possible in this world. I assume that the Pareto principle will work, your 80% of shares will follow the indices. and 20% are against. if you to know a way the index-> you can pour the champagne. if not-> 80% of your shares will destroy your account. even one stock can fall as deep as you cannot even imagine.
Test your idea over the past year for the sake of experiment. but the experiment must be clean. because at the moment you know the direction of the indices for the past year. and you will "predict" the trend. but it would be interesting to see the result.

 

[Tradex]

Sell the losers,

Backtests reveal that the "dogs" of the Dow returned 10.8% to investors in the last 20 years, the same exact return that the Dow itself.

But...

https://thecollegeinvestor.com/3441/dogs-dow-strategy-winner/

 

[reinghar]

Do it with 500 stocks and call it the S&P 500.

 

[ChipShotTrader]

Backtests reveal that the "dogs" of the Dow returned 10.8% to investors in the last 20 years, the same exact return that the Dow itself.

But...

https://thecollegeinvestor.com/3441/dogs-dow-strategy-winner/

Hi @Tradex

I visited Michael B. O'Higgins office in Miami Beach, back in 2004-2005, and I met with him personally. What seemed really weird, is that on the left side of his office, he had AN ENTIRE WALL of framed articles about himself, from floor to ceiling (absolutely ridiculous). He was a nice guy, and super fit. Upon further due diligence, I found out that at this time period of his life, he was suicidal, and many of his clients wanted their money back. I also found out that he did not even follow his own strategy, and would sabotage himself by buying at a later date, than what his system would indicate. I passed, and moved on. Just like I did with Harris Kupperman:

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...of-harris-kupperman-praetorian2.210143/page-2

Although I was in my late twenties at the time, and he was way older, I knew this guy had NO fucking clue about trading. He was obsessed with recognition, and not really with making money.

Due Diligence is KEY...

True Story!!!

 

[Bad_Badness]

You could drive randomly making left and right turns and hope you will reach your destination too.

Instead of a left, make a right and visa versa the second time.

Instead of going 1 mile before turning make it 2 miles the second time.

You will still never reach a specific location and just run out of gas and wear out your car, and waste your time.

 

[kmiklas]

I was thinking about how I tend to try and buy stocks "on sale" and how I bet if I went back and calculated every time I did that I bet my results would suck. So, why not do the opposite?

What about an investment/trading (whatever you want to call it) strategy, where you start with [30] stocks. They could be purely random, or you could have some criteria. Whatever. But once you buy your [30] stocks, once every [week] you sell your [5] biggest losers/least winners and replace them with [5] new stocks (random or that also meet your initial criteria, whatever). You keep that up forever and ever.

Does that portfolio make one a ton of money over time? Sell the losers, let the winners ride baby!!!!

It's one big 50/50

 

[DiceAreCast]

Taxes apply to all trading that realizes gains within the holding periods in which reduced capital gains taxes do not apply. As losses are realized earlier than gains this is even a lesser issue. Again, taxation is completely irrelevant with this strategy, especially in relative comparison. Investing is an entirely different concept

There are those who blabber. There are others who can't read carefully other people's posts and go on the attack. Then there are those people who manage to do both.

 

[JSOP]

I was thinking about how I tend to try and buy stocks "on sale" and how I bet if I went back and calculated every time I did that I bet my results would suck. So, why not do the opposite?

What about an investment/trading (whatever you want to call it) strategy, where you start with [30] stocks. They could be purely random, or you could have some criteria. Whatever. But once you buy your [30] stocks, once every [week] you sell your [5] biggest losers/least winners and replace them with [5] new stocks (random or that also meet your initial criteria, whatever). You keep that up forever and ever.

Does that portfolio make one a ton of money over time? Sell the losers, let the winners ride baby!!!!

Try it and find out. Demo-trade this idea and let us know the results if you want.

 

[comagnum]

Dogs of he DOW.. really?

Momo trading you can beat 25 years of the dogs of the Dow on one good trade.

#1 look for stocks in a clear uptrend, preferable near their highs for longs, reverse for shorts
#2 filter the list down to stocks in the most constricting formations - 4-26 weeks is ideal. The pattern should look like a coiled spring.
#3 watch for earnings date. enter at open if price moves in the anticipated direction on well above avg volume.
#4 try to hold until close as long as price is acting right - you'll figure it out.
#5 expect a big surge up in the last hour when the big players start accumulating

 

[Snuskpelle]

Do it with 500 stocks and call it the S&P 500.

Do note that the S&P 500 guides a large portion of the world's equity investment streams, so it's hardly comparable. The tail wags that dog.