How long will it take to turn a $5,000 account into $100,000?

[landboy]

Quote from mirtex:

You are right, if you have UNFAIR coin with even 49/51 chance and bet engough times, you make your money.

I think science_trader didnt noticed UNFAIR word...

a 50 plus 1 advantage would work wonders if you had the patience and next to zero commission. Granted with the competition in today's marketplace, commissions are not nearly as of a concern as before.

I like to think of the market as a casino, tip the odds in your favor with a concrete edge, and play it systematically. In the end, the house always wins

 

[science_trader]

Nothing changes with a 49/51 or even an 80/20. The reasoning is the same. The only thing it changes is the expected return.

Just think of all possible paths your outcome may follow. After N times steps, one third of all the paths will be below the expected return (let's call it A(N) for average after N steps). Actuall this one third of scenarios are between A(N) and A(N)-sqrt(N).

Let's consider all paths that end up exactly at A(N)-sqrt(N). If you consider N steps again for all these paths, only one sixth will end up above A(2*N) (which is the average after 2*N steps) and one third between A(2*N) and A(2*N)-sqrt(N).

And you can keep on going the reasonning for more and more time steps.

You can understand it in another way. If you consider a fixed interval around the average A(N), let's say [A(N)+epsilon , A(N)-epsilon], the proportion of scenarios in this fixed interval decreases when N increases, and this is the reason for the word 'DIFFUSION'.

 

[mirtex]

Quote from science_trader:

Nothing changes with a 49/51 or even an 80/20. The reasoning is the same. The only thing it changes is the expected return.

Just think of all possible paths your outcome may follow. After N times steps, one third of all the paths will be below the expected return (let's call it A(N) for average after N steps). Actuall this one third of scenarios are between A(N) and A(N)-sqrt(N).

Let's consider all paths that end up exactly at A(N)-sqrt(N). If you consider N steps again for all these paths, only one sixth will end up above A(2*N) (which is the average after 2*N steps) and one third between A(2*N) and A(2*N)-sqrt(N).

And you can keep on going the reasonning for more and more time steps.

You can understand it in another way. If you consider a fixed interval around the average A(N), let's say [A(N)+epsilon , A(N)-epsilon], the proportion of scenarios in this fixed interval decreases when N increases, and this is the reason for the word 'DIFFUSION'.

Well, right now I'm too tired to read an try understand, but with unfair coin 51/49, when I bet 100 times on 51 side and win return is twice the money, I go away with the profit.
Nothing else to say.

 

[PitchBlack]

Quote from mirtex:

Well, right now I'm too tired to read an try understand, but with unfair coin 51/49, when I bet 100 times on 51 side and win return is twice the money, I go away with the profit.
Nothing else to say.

Indeed, just DO IT.

Leave the theoretical discussion to those who dare not try to trade and prefer to discuss about hypothetical and theoretical chances until they're dead.
It's clear to me that some of the "math wizards" on elitetrader never have traded and never will trade. They don't have the abilities needed to become a successfully trader. One of the main errors that they make is thinking that there is a 100% correlation between knowing math ( preferable at the highest level possible) and being a successfully trader. There is no correlation at all between these two elements.

 

[Mathemagician]

Quote from spike500:

It's clear to me that some of the "math wizards" on elitetrader never have traded and never will trade. They don't have the abilities needed to become a successfully trader. One of the main errors that they make is thinking that there is a 100% correlation between knowing math ( preferable at the highest level possible) and being a successfully trader. There is no correlation at all between these two elements.

Couldn't disagree more. I believe there is a strongly negative correlation.

M

 

[ElectricSavant]

Quote from Mathemagician:

Couldn't disagree more. I believe there is a strongly negative correlation.

M

 

[science_trader]

Quote from spike500:

Indeed, just DO IT.

Leave the theoretical discussion to those who dare not try to trade and prefer to discuss about hypothetical and theoretical chances until they're dead.
It's clear to me that some of the "math wizards" on elitetrader never have traded and never will trade. They don't have the abilities needed to become a successfully trader. One of the main errors that they make is thinking that there is a 100% correlation between knowing math ( preferable at the highest level possible) and being a successfully trader. There is no correlation at all between these two elements.

If this is the only answer you are able to give, then why do you post ? What do I care if YOU, small little spike500, think that I don't trade ? Do you really think I need your acknowledgement ?

You're just one in the middle of hundreds (even thousands) of posters who come to ET, post here for 3 months and then disappear...

 

[PitchBlack]

Quote from science_trader:

[You're just one in the middle of hundreds (even thousands) of posters who come to ET, post here for 3 months and then disappear... [/B]

I'm daytrading since 1990 and still survive.
People that post such an amount of postings like you do with very difficult words to impress people do that to compensate for an inferior feeling in other domains.
If i go away after three months it might be because of the "level of the huge knowledge " that you post.
You seem to be the only poster who exactly knows how things works.
I'm still waiting after the first practical thing, posted by you, that is useful in real trading. All i read is academical bulls***

Can you show us a real track record that confirms your ability to make profit as a trader?

And when i said that there was no correlation between knowledge of math and succesful trading i meant a positive correlation of course.

 

[science_trader]

Quote from spike500:

I'm daytrading since 1990 and still survive.
People that post such an amounts of postings like you do with very difficult words to impress people do that to compensate for an inferior feeling in other domains.
If i go away after three months i might be because of the "level of the huge knowledge " that you post.
You seem to be the only poster who exactly knows how things works.
I'm still waiting after the first practical thing, posted by you, that is useful in real trading. All i read is academical bulls***

Can you show us a real track record that confirms your ability to make profit as a trader?

And you don't even know how to read : I don't care about you.

 

[yenzen]

Quote from spike500:

I'm daytrading since 1990 and still survive.
People that post such an amount of postings like you do with very difficult words to impress people do that to compensate for an inferior feeling in other domains.
If i go away after three months it might be because of the "level of the huge knowledge " that you post.
You seem to be the only poster who exactly knows how things works.
I'm still waiting after the first practical thing, posted by you, that is useful in real trading. All i read is academical bulls***

Can you show us a real track record that confirms your ability to make profit as a trader?

And when i said that there was no correlation between knowledge of math and succesful trading i meant a positive correlation of course.

get lost kid. ur full of it.

Zen.