If most ppl lose when they try to win $$, what happens when they "try" to lose $?

Innervoice said:
When you try to win trading stocks you are playing with “ scared money”.. Thats not the case when you try to lose..
More...
%%
LOL exactly\
some times bit of fear can be a good thing. I'm afraid of trying to win a against a policeman or policeperson 's guns. Same with sheriff; both would be stupid losers game.
A police-lady asked me once + i was bit nervous since she caught me speeedng ''do you have a gun/she saw my''NRA sticker I Vote'' /i told her politely NO \not on me/LOL
HOWEVER if you saw 13 birds in a tree[say crows] a shot gun could get a bunch of them LOL
Sorry trading+ nerves is so much harder than bird shooting.
BUT strangely Market Makers Edge is 6 month chart; shoot for center mass maybe get 5 or 6 crows. Doves + quail turkeys are usually smarter than to roost5-6 in exact center mass.
Billion buck Hedge Fundbook [by Larry Mint Hite] is decide what you '' can lose[or willing to lose'']
NOT meaning you try to lose unless you are dumb enough to go against a sheriff + 5- 6 shooter or 14 shooter .Possible you could buy a big NY s island from Indians for peanuts:D:D
Possible to buy AK oil wells[ +indian villiages for pennies per acre][edit/ history in hindsight best]
An ETF / SPY or basket of oil stocks may do OK/ fine ; bird cr*p/pchicken cr*p, bull Cr*p, bat cr*p has done much better long term buys + sells than cryptoCr*p..................................................
 
alistera said:
If you try to win you lose at a given variable speed determined by market forces and your choices, if you try to lose you lose spectacularly fast, someone I know ran the numbers and the NYSE can absorb an Accredited Investors nest egg in seconds, the world works on trying to win faster than the next person.

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/unregulated-broker.373473/page-2#post-5790095

It relates to above, the key is what I do via the people I know, you stay inert not losing while still having market exposure, until such time some third party rolls crap down the hill and you layer winning alongside it.

iu


Apparently everyone on this site likes this type of thing, every piece of fintech, methodology, process, knowledge I have access to works on this basis, from the top down, you will never find it anywhere else except those provided with a golden goose like Buffett or at levels of institution and sovereign.

It works for everything, health, lifestyle, markets, corona, inflation, careers, winning and losing today are starting to correlate, all you can now do is profit alongside sovereign wealth and institutional movements, not many in the world that can track those before they have finished :)
More...
Could you rephrase, please? Trying to figure out if there is something to do this post.
 
This is like saying "Most people lose when they play against a pro basketball player, so maybe they should try to lose and then they'll win."

It's obviously silly nonsense.
 
Snuskpelle said:
Maybe you could do it by trading into a black box that may or may not decide to invert your signal.
More...
This is close to the only way what the OP wants to do is possible. It’s fear and greed that’s hurting them more than anything else. rather than a program that does/doesn’t invert your signal, you would want to have a program that does/doesn’t submit your inverted trade (and keep trading the way you are now)
 
Last edited:
pinetboltz said:
ok, so the thought experiment came to me over the weekend, thinking about VC investments (those who burn cash fastest try to earn it back on "market valuations") and reverse psychology and the Parasite movie which i'd watched on the plane (the one from 2019 which won best picture, i can see how it mirrors the zeitgeist)

you know how most people don't make much money even when they try so hard?
eg. most traders lose when they try so hard to make $$ trading?

what happens if they make it a game where they "try" to lose $$?
eg. instead of having the "goal" of growing an account from $X, they try to LOSE the whole wad, as fast as possible?

before you say, "isn't that what they're doing at r/wallstreetbets" LOL, i think those options guys are either/ some combination of:
- very rich, and can thus be so nonchalant in essentially playing $100k hands of poker on their personal cash, burning through their bankroll
- very young, with early access to their trust funds which they'll surely squander
- very desperate for attention, that they'll take such random throws of the dice/ earnings plays for social media clout
- very good at photoshop

but let's say for pure FX, futures, stocks, etc
if ppl are given free reins to trade however they want, with the stated objective of "losing" the whole account (first down to 0 wins) as fast as possible, what do you reckon would happen?
- would they still lose $$
- or would they paradoxically make $$ (kinda ironic)

has anyone tried doing this by playing on demos? keen to hear your stories
More...

The Wall Street documentary "Brewsters Millions" may be of interest.
 
What the OP does not realize is there are literally a million trades, entries and exits in a day. It is not really a matter of a handful being flipped or some other simple magical solution.

The problem is selecting BETTER trades from that millions that are possible. He should focus on finding and executing better trades. Seriously, what good does it do to sample .00005% of the trades and say, "gee I should just flip them".
 
i think what got me thinking about the question in the first place was watching that movie on the plane (the parasite) - had been curious to see what the hype was after it won those awards a few years ago

the plot veered a bit into the stuff of hyperbole (perhaps intentionally) but overall the takeaway - at least to me - was if the protagonist family did everything the opposite to what they actually did, they’d probably have ended up achieving what they wanted in the first place.

not to psychianalyze too deep but I think like the family in that movie, for a significant portion of people the ‘need’ to make $$ crosses into a liability territory rather than an asset, which paradoxically makes it easier to get trapped into making bad decisions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top