OMG I can't believe this fallacy still exists in trading!

Actually, I will be picking up my Lotus Emira 1st edition in March. :)
This is the build.


View attachment 325222



View attachment 325223
lotus2-png.325222


This is like HINDSIGHT ANALYSIS, only in reverse.
 
The article implies that the stock has only dropped 50% but has to recover 100% for you to gain your losses back, therefore implying that it is somehow harder for that to happen when it is not.

No, it is not implying that at all. How the fuck you are reading that into what Investopedia wrote as you quoted it is beyond me. You're looking for something that isn't there, in the desperate need to somehow bolster your precept.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rb7
No,only a complete NOOB would would post that "if a stock drops 20%,it will simply have to rise by the same percentage to break even"...

You are the only guy on this board who is confusing percentages with probabilities..

You havent mentioned distributions,volatility or anything remotely close.

Why not run a simple backtest purchasing stocks 50% off their 1-2 year highs and come up with a distribution of returns? Ill spot you survivorship bias..

How much money have you made trading skew???

You are completely missing the point of the entire topic...and nobody is saying that....and only the people who are suffering from traders fallacy are mixing up percentages with probability. That's actually the fallacy.
 
No, it is not implying that at all. How the fuck you are reading that into what Investopedia wrote as you quoted it is beyond me. You're looking for something that isn't there, in the desperate need to somehow bolster your precept.

Well then what's the point of the article? Your portfolio's ability to recover is completely unaffected by the entire scenario they are referencing.
 
Last edited:
First off,its clear that you are not a trader. You havent presented one argument backed by simulations,stats or common sense.Below is your quote.

A stock that drops from $10 to $5 can just as easily increase back to $10. It happens all the time. The percent increase is completely irrelevant. If this was the case stocks would never channel.

Prove to us that ""it happens all the time? Define Easily??What percent EASILY retrace.? And why leave out half the equation?? What percent of the time does the stock that has fallen 50% keep on falling? Is buying a stock off 50% from its highs a good buy with a 100 percent profit target?? Is it a winning or losing strategy????

And how do you know that a stock that has fallen 50% wont fall another 50%????

Did you run a backtest???? I did...

If that wasnt enough,your reading comprehension is on par with your "research"..

Are you lumping in a Momo approach to trading with Deep Value DCF approach??

Are you saying a day trader/short term trader should have the same "investing style"/money management as a Dollar cost Average Investor??

Its a mathematical fact that a 50% drawdown requires a 100% gain to beak even..no more no less...

As its clear you dont trade,what would you advise the trader who employs 2-1 plus leverage???

Whats more likely,a stock doubling after going down 50% from its 1 year high,or going down another 50%?? Ill throw you the survivorship bone...

I ran it on the Russel 3000.....Lets hear it






KEY TAKEAWAYS
  • Always think in terms of future potential—you can't do anything about the past, so don't depend on it.
  • A selling strategy that's successful for one person might not work for somebody else.
  • Once we own something, we tend to let emotions such as greed or fear get in the way of good judgment.
  • It's important to think critically about selling; know your investing style and use that strategy to stay disciplined, keeping your emotions out of the market.
  • A 50% drop means the position will need to gain 100% to return to the original amount.

A stock that drops from $10 to $5 can just as easily increase back to $10. It happens all the time. The percent increase is completely irrelevant. If this was the case stocks would never channel.



You are completely missing the point of the entire topic...and nobody is saying that....and only the people who are suffering from traders fallacy are mixing up percentages with probability. That's actually the fallacy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rb7
First off,its clear that you are not a trader. You havent presented one argument backed by simulations,stats or common sense.Below is your quote.



Prove to us that ""it happens all the time? Define Easily??What percent EASILY retrace.? And why leave out half the equation?? What percent of the time does the stock that has fallen 50% keep on falling? Is buying a stock off 50% from its highs a good buy with a 100 percent profit target?? Is it a winning or losing strategy????

And how do you know that a stock that has fallen 50% wont fall another 50%????

Did you run a backtest???? I did...

If that wasnt enough,your reading comprehension is on par with your "research"..

Are you lumping in a Momo approach to trading with Deep Value DCF approach??

Are you saying a day trader/short term trader should have the same "investing style"/money management as a Dollar cost Average Investor??

Its a mathematical fact that a 50% drawdown requires a 100% gain to beak even..no more no less...

As its clear you dont trade,what would you advise the trader who employs 2-1 plus leverage???

Whats more likely,a stock doubling after going down 50% from its 1 year high,or going down another 50%?? Ill throw you the survivorship bone...

I ran it on the Russel 3000.....Lets hear it






KEY TAKEAWAYS
  • Always think in terms of future potential—you can't do anything about the past, so don't depend on it.
  • A selling strategy that's successful for one person might not work for somebody else.
  • Once we own something, we tend to let emotions such as greed or fear get in the way of good judgment.
  • It's important to think critically about selling; know your investing style and use that strategy to stay disciplined, keeping your emotions out of the market.
  • A 50% drop means the position will need to gain 100% to return to the original amount.


You are completely missing the point of what a traders fallacy is referring to.
 
You are completely missing the point of what a traders fallacy is referring to.
You keep using that expression incorrectly. It is Gamblers or Monte Carlo Fallacy.

Which has nothing to do with reversing an established trend.

No wonder you are doing binaries. You only need to get the direction right. Math, simple math, is obviously not your strength.

Done with this rinse repeat trying to get thru a thick skull, and I don't mean for the night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rb7
Back
Top