HODL'ers BTFO

[Anonymous No.8631995]

Lmao'ing at your life.

>inb4 nocoiner
Made money off BTC/LTC while you were in middle school
>inb4 op cant inb4

[Anonymous No.8632023]

>>8631995
nobody says "op can't inb4" newbie, like ever

nocoiner newfag detected

[Anonymous No.8632111]

If you can always time the market, sure keep doing that. Good for you.
I always end up selling at the bottom and buying high when I don't hold.

[Anonymous No.8632134]

>>8632023
Next level irony or next level retardation.

[Anonymous No.8632155]

>>8632111
This. If you're able to time the market then the whole concept is irrelevant since you should just be doing 100x leveraged longs/shorts at all times.

[Anonymous No.8632169]

>>8632111
That's why you use indicators rather than your gut feelings.

[Anonymous No.8632294]

>>8632169
Bullshit. TA and indicators aren't reliable with a heavily manipulated asset where a huge green or red dildo can come without notice and destroy you.
I'm not saying they're useless, TA and indicators work relatively well with btc/alt pairs, I use them to swing trade. But not btc/usd.

[Anonymous No.8632302]

>>8632023
they used to say it on /b/ back in the day so just assume OP is retarded

[Anonymous No.8632366]

>>8632169
I use Bartical analysis since it's advent and can confirm, have only made gains ever since

[Anonymous No.8632392]

>>8632294
They're not 100% reliable but they're better than just winging it.

>TA and indicators work relatively well with btc/alt pairs, I use them to swing trade

Even if you swing trade alts successfully, as long as BTC is tanking you'll still get JUST'd.

[Anonymous No.8632427]

the fear mongering is in full effect, time to buy

[Anonymous No.8632435]

the right side of this chart is bogus.
we all know this shit goes down and keeps going down.

[Anonymous No.8632576]

OP, you seem to genuinely care that other people are inefficient at this stuff and missing out on gains. It is absolutely selfless of you to try to steer these poor souls down the right path. God bless, you stupid fucking transparent sack of faggot.

[Anonymous No.8632669]

>>8632023

> nobody says OP can't inb4

where the fuck were you in 2008? I'm guessing still in kindergarten.

[Anonymous No.8632728]

>>8631995
OP use the updated version to avoid retards like this
>>8632111
>>8632155

[Anonymous No.8632921]

>>8632728
just bought for profit..feels good

[Anonymous No.8633656]

You wish, OP.

[Anonymous No.8633690]

>>8632111
it's not about "timing the market" meme, it's about finding trend reversals. If you buy and sell within 10-15% of BTC highs and lows you do very well.

[Anonymous No.8633798]

>>8633690
I think you're underselling very well, the way I see it 30% is A+ grade.

[Anonymous No.8633820]

>>8633656
this

Anon you are dumb as a rock. Smart people don't engage in shit they know nothing about, in this case TA. The only reasonably thing is to invest in coins you believe in and HODL. Also, TA doesn't work in crypto for the most part. Bart has proved this multiple times.

[Anonymous No.8633844]

HODLing is the best strategy. Nobody makes money margin trading at this low volume. Timing the market cant be perfected but it helps.
The solution is to not be a bitch and take profits.
Don't think of crypto like an investment where you are working along the efficient market frontier or only have short temporary downswings.
Think of it like Poker. A game of probability and gambling with no house edge that can be beat and is very profitable. So then do poker players "HODL?" well not quite in that they do not just keep taking their winnings moving up in stakes until they are el busto. They use a bank roll. Find what stakes they can beat. Find a reasonable amount of buy ins in that range. Take profits to put food on the table.
See you dont need to "time crypto" because you dont need to go all in on red. Buy in with a portion of your bankroll. When you are up a decent amount. Rinse and repeat. If your stack goes down in value to a point of neglibility. Buy in with more of your bankroll.
It doesn't take rocket science.
Have $10k to invest? Put in $1k. Doubled up in a bull market? Nice take profits. Doubled up again? Nice take out $1k.
Doubled up again!? Nice take out $1k.
Oh no market crashed you are down to $400? Put in another $600 of that original $10k. Rinse and repeat. Until you can afford a larger bank roll. Then use a larger buy in next crash.

[Anonymous No.8633963]

>>8631995
>Made money off BTC/LTC while you were in middle school

Anyone who's been in the game that long and still hasn't made it, is a total fucking idiot! Seriously, how are you not a multi millionaire?

[Anonymous No.8634223]

>>8633844
>>8633820
t. retards who lost money and refuse to admit it's because other people are better.

[Anonymous No.8634299]

Fixed that one for you OP

[Anonymous No.8634330]

>>8633820
smart people learn things worth learning, like TA

[Anonymous No.8634336]

>>8634223
You would be hard presses to find a window small enough that my strategy is actually losing.

[Anonymous No.8634360]

>he didn’t buy COSS in late March

[Anonymous No.8634365]

>>8634330
The most dangerous thing people can do in finance or even econ modeling is blindly follow a model without properly understanding the assumptions involved.

[Anonymous No.8634383]

>>8634360
>he didn’t buy COSS literally RIGHT NOW

[Anonymous No.8634388]

>>8634365

One of the best things I've done is get into investing as well as sports betting/modeling at the same time

They are very similar and suffer form the same recurring psychological pitfalls, confirmation bias is the biggest killer.

[Anonymous No.8634484]

>>8634388
That and the variance on crypto is insane. Use models sure, it's about getting an edge, especially sports betting. But understand them fully. TA is mostly useless in crypto for example. Dont bet anything reasonable on your sample size of one.
And most importantly understand the assumptions needed for it to work.
>The market discounts everything.
>Price moves in trends.
>History tends to repeat itself
These three things have no obligation to hold in all cases. Just like modelling based on efficient markets is insanely useful. Blindly assuming markets are efficient will lose you money.

[Anonymous No.8634642]

>>8634336
1. 3.5 years is not a small window
>I just hold and have blind faith that it will go up
2. That's not a "strategy" retard

[Anonymous No.8634772]

>>8634642
1.Any 3.5 year window and my strategy would have been insanely profitable with.
2. I could actually explain the math involved, the concept of "risk aversion" before the table, variance and expected values, or why I find standard modern portfolio theories removal risk via noncorrelation don't work in crypto. But you would be stupid to get it. I could explain why the strategy inheriantly lends itself to buy low sell high but it is frivelous. I falsely assumed people did their own research and had reasons to believe the price would go up when they bought silly me and my blind faith.

[Anonymous No.8634876]

>>8631995
The term "HODL" was created to trick retarded children and adults into thinking "store of value".

For you retarded children and adults, it's can't be a store of value unless you are able to withdraw the same amount of utility that you put in, or very close to it.

On this very day, with Heaven being our witness, I swear that white Christian males will finish what Sacred Germany started. Either by enlightning to help you grasp a decent level of intelligence and self-worth, or by eliminating your parasitic precense.

[Anonymous No.8634906]

>>8634772
>1.Any 3.5 year window and my strategy would have been insanely profitable with.
Confirmed retard
>I could actually explain the math involved
Please do, I'm well versed in math.
I recommend www.hostmath.com to format your expressions
>"risk aversion"
>go all in and just hold XD
lol
>table, variance and expected values
Why bother with that shit if hodling is the best """""""""strategy"""""""""?

[Anonymous No.8634928]

>>8632169
>>8632294

There isn't an indicator that would sell when OP show the sell on the 1st graph. That first drop would've given you a downtrend rating on most oscilators and you'd never have known If you read price action, yes you could sell/buy at those points because of the support/resistence break.

Also, OP isn't showing something impossible, he's not showing a perfect market timing. He's not selling the top and buying the buttom, what is shown in the first pic is actually a very normal, smart play that can easily be seen.

[Anonymous No.8634947]

>>8634906
>go all in.
You didnt even read my post did you?
And yes you would be profitable in that case. Most you can lose is 90% of your first buy in if you bought the top. And would double up your second multiple times afterwards.

[Anonymous No.8634951]

>>8634360
I honestly don't know why cup and handle is such a meme on this site, the shit works. It happened on the stock LULU today on it's breakout day after forming a cup and handle over many weeks.

[Anonymous No.8634981]

>>8634947
>And yes you would be profitable in that case.
>down 10%
confirmed retard.

[Anonymous No.8634985]

>>8633656
this

daytrading is a meme

[Anonymous No.8634996]

>>8634985
>daytrading
The OP doesn't have a time axis retard.

[Anonymous No.8635092]

>>8634981
>invest $1000
>goes down to $250
> buy in $750.
>sell $1000 at $500
>sell $1000 at $1000
Thats a net profit of $1250 at the worst case scenario. But I agree the double up rule is too wide in that period. And it would be slightly below $1250 if you but a reasonably tight rebuy with the 2x and got caught trying to catch a falling knife.
Regardless i cant think of any scenario or targets you would be down 10%.
So maybe you are the one bad at math.

[Anonymous No.8635164]

>>8632023
lmao feeling crunchy now hahaha

[Anonymous No.8635188]

>>8632023
Lurk before you post newfag

[Anonymous No.8635223]

>>8635092
>buy in $750 (perfectly timing the market at the exact bottom @250$)
TOP LEL you just contradicted yourself >>8633844

[Anonymous No.8635377]

>>8635223
So you have now linked that post twice without reading it? You dont top up your stack everytime you are down 1%, that defeats the purpose of multiple buy ins. You could make the argument of buying in at 50% down. I acknowledged that. And I probably would have set taking profits tighter. But it would still be profitable. And you were being loose demanding a literal 3.5 year high as the initial buy in and an exactly 3.5 year windows profits so I set the rebuyin at 75% in, since e(v)+ and large sample sizes is the core premise anyway, if you want to set buyin at perfect high, I can set rebuyin at perfect low. Seriously crypto is not for you. Try slots or roulette.

[Anonymous No.8635604]

>>8635377
Your """"""strategy""""" is literally "buy more until it goes up". This is fucking retarded and no different than "go all in and just hold XD". You can also only play with lunch money since you need to be able to double your investment several times if it keeps going down.

>I set the rebuyin at 75% in, ̶ ̶s̶i̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶e̶(̶v̶)̶+̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶l̶a̶r̶g̶e̶ ̶s̶a̶m̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶s̶i̶z̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶m̶i̶s̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶w̶a̶y̶ Since that was as far down I could see on your graph and I literally don't even know it dropped 50% more after that
fixed

[Anonymous No.8635691]

>>8631995
>being happy with 100iq
never gonna make it anon

[Anonymous No.8635744]

>>8635691
>when the price rises so fast it goes into negative time dilation
lel

[Anonymous No.8635787]

>>8635604
>Your """"""strategy""""" is literally "buy more until it goes up". This is fucking retarded and no different than "go all in and just hold XD".
Holy shit you actually failed basic statistics. How do you even TA and regression test? See probability is not just some arbitrary thing. Its what the outcome trends towards when our sample size moves towards infinity. If buying crypto is E(v)+ then as our sample size increase we eliminate variance. That is why it is not the same. Betting 1,000,000 on a coinflip. Is not the same as betting $1 on a coinflip 1,000,000 times. The expected value is the same. But we will not ever hit the expected value with the former. By increasing the number of buy in we move towards the expected value. If a coinflip has a 51% chance of heads. All in on heads is retarded. Betting $1 on heads a million times is not. Should crypto be e(v)- your strategy will be a losing strategy as well. We can not remove random risk through diversification either since there is strong correlation, likely due to crypro floating angainst the satoshi. The fact that this isnt common sense to me makes it funny that you pretended to be good at math.
I mean seriously you have to say a "sample size of one" is the same as a sample size "more than 1" is hilarious. And that is before the fsct that taking profits inheriantly means sell high. And rebuyins inheariantly means low. But I am sure you are trying desperately to rejig the model with 1% down rebuyins and insane targets foe taking profits so you can say I would have lost money compared to your prophecy about the Goxening.

[Anonymous No.8635984]

>>8635787
>all that shit
You're still buying more in blind faith until it goes up retard. Doesn't matter how many undergrad statistics terms (and no actual math lol) you throw in there.

Also people have done regression modelling on markets since the 60's. None of those models have been profitable long term, but I'm sure you'll be the first.

[Anonymous No.8635991]

>>8635787
I didn't read your whole effortpost but you might be able to answer a statistics question of mine
We have this thing called regression to the mean in science where as the dataset gets larger and larger it approaches the statistically-correct mean
We also have this thing called gambler's fallacy where it's wrong to think that just because you've seen a pattern you can predict the future
So how do you marry these two seemingly-paradoxical concepts?
According to regression to the mean, wouldn't I be able to just wait at the roulette table until I see 6 reds in a row and then bet on black? Since I saw those 6 extra reds in the datasets then over time I should gain back 6 extra blacks in my personal dataset to get back to the mean.
We know this isn't the case though since the wave (digression from the mean) might be bigger this time and it's likely to be bigger since we might be seeing the start of it from the 6 reds.
But how does regression to the mean work if we treat the temperatures as random gambling?
Statistics just seems like literal magic to me

[Anonymous No.8636023]

>>8634876
Crypto already has more utility than national currencies you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.8636050]

>>8635991
I'll also add that we know that the 6 extra reds would be less and less of a statistical effect as the data set grows to try and get the reds and blacks to line up. The reds and blacks will only rarely actually be the same number exactly. (it's very unlikely to find someone with a literal exact 100iq)

[Anonymous No.8636090]

>>8634299
Even though im a hodler. Trades arent taxed in first world countries. Only 3rd world countries like america tax crypto/crypto trades

[Anonymous No.8636098]

>>8635991
>So how do you marry these two seemingly-paradoxical concepts?
If you have blind faith a stock will increase in value, then you can just ignore the latter one and avoid the paradox

Also don't start a new row for every sentence, use paragraphs.

[Anonymous No.8636155]

poor people sell (re-positioning is called being poor)
smart people just put more money in

[Anonymous No.8636174]

>>8636023
t. mommy pays all bills

[Anonymous No.8636211]

>>8632294

>Where a huge green or red dildo can come without notice and destroy you

The feels

[Anonymous No.8636212]

>>8631995
Makes sense until you sell the 1 BTC you bought at $10k for $20k, then fomo back in for 1.33 BTC at $15k and it keeps dropping so you hold waiting for it to recover, tax time rolls around and now your 1.33 BTC is worth $9k but you owe $3k in taxes... so you're now down $4k from your initial $10k investment

[Anonymous No.8636237]

>>8636174
Look at it from a technical perspective. Cryptocurrency has serious advantages over normal currency even if it's not widely adopted yet. Either it gets widely adopted, or governments outlaw it, and it gets widely adopted anyways. They would have to literally shut down the internet.

[Anonymous No.8636305]

>>8635991
Gamblers fallacy is assuming two independent events have an effect on each other. If the odds of red or black is 50%. Then if there are 6 red rolls in a row, an uncommon occurance, the probability of black or red going forward is still 50%., because the previous rolls were independent events. However, if we see a roulette table has no rake an equal probability of landing on each slot. Bit 60% of the slots were black. We should bet on black. Even if the previous 10 outcomes are Red. Now what I am saying is we should not bet all our money on it because that would suck if it was red. Instead we should run it as many times as feasbile. And if it somehow keeps going red. As long as we are positive there is a greater probability of black, keep rolling. If you believe buying bitcoin at a period in time has an expect value negative or neutral (meaning risk of decrease times amount it would decrease>= the amount it would increase times said probability) then no we should not buy. Buying over and over would not solve this. However if the opposite is true and it is an independent event. We should avoid risk buy spreading out our buys. However in your race to be a smart ass you falsely assumed every BTC movement is an independent event. Which it is not
>>8635984
You should read the modern portfolio theory paper from the 50s. Regardless the reason you dont do it in traditional markets is you can remove random error through diversification.

[Anonymous No.8636351]

>>8636237
>They would have to literally shut down the internet.

Banning things that aren't morally despicable doesn't generally work out. Shutting down the internet isn't going to happen. Crypto isn't going anywhere no matter how much they try to shut it down.

[Anonymous No.8636356]

>>8636237
Don't use "utility" if you don't know what it means
>>8636305
>traditional markets
>muh crypto is unique
lol
>random error
That's not why reg models have failed retard.

[Anonymous No.8636408]

>>8636356
What models have failed? Most hold if you keep to their assumptions. Which are you even referring to? Efficient market hypothesis? CAPM? modern portfolio theory? Etc?
And crypto is unique in its insanely correlated nature. And the fact that you can not remove the error term from BTC through sheer number of coins held

[Anonymous No.8636434]

>>8633656
I kek'd, I thought I was the only one. Why do we buy when it's high and we sell when it's low like retards?

[Anonymous No.8636451]

>>8636305
I'm also wondering about outpacing the average.
If we know that a martingale strategy has a 1% chance of making you go to 0 at your bank of 1000 then if you win the first hand and go up to 1001 the chance of you going to 0 is now lower than 1% since you're above 1000.
Why can't you just keep outpacing the chance of busting? It's the equivalent of the extinction problem, if each alien has a 1% chance of dying then as long as the aliens reproduce above a certain rate then extinction is virtually impossible since it goes down to 0 as the population goes up. Casinos get around this by putting a limit on the bet amount though.

[Anonymous No.8636557]

>>8636408
>What models have failed?
Like I said, all of them
>Efficient market hypothesis? CAPM? modern portfolio theory?
those are not reg models retard.
>And crypto is unique in its insanely correlated nature
I know you don't have any facts to back your buzzword bullshit up, but I'll ask anyways: What is the CI of top 100 crypto? how does it compare to https://us.spindices.com/indices/equity/sp-north-american-technology-sector-index

[Anonymous No.8636577]

>>8636451
Oh were you actually trying to ask me about gamblers fallacy? I thought you were trying to be a smart ass and suggest I was participating in it. I am not sure what you are asking here though? You only stand to lose what you bet. Not what is behind.

[Anonymous No.8636762]

>>8636557
Any time you plug correlation into a model you are reg testing. You can find it on your own DYOR. Any math on it is ludicrously hard to so so take any study with a grain of salt. I was more arguing to view crypto as a single asset not as a portfolio. Rather than testing it against the S&P500. Noise associated with a random stock does not effect the S&p 500 or Dow Jones as much as noise associated with bitcoin effects the entire crypto market in $.

[Anonymous No.8636994]

>>8636762
>Any time you plug correlation into a model you are reg testing
What? Do you even know what "reg testing" is? Efficient market hypothesis isn't even a mathematical model at all, you can't "plug" anything into it. I'm now fully convinced you're just parroting words you've seen on investopedia

[Anonymous No.8637106]

>>8636577
>>8636451
Oh I think I figured out what you are saying. Your roulette table follows secrete probability meaning there is a set number of outcomes.
So we can see the outcome as.
((0.5)(0x))+((0.5)(2x)) with only two possible outcomes. Irrespective of what you put in x 0x is 0. So you hit 0 with probality 0.5.
>>8636994
When did I say it is. If you want to use it to make inferences and then significance test your findings you gotta use regression testing. When you said reg models the first time. I thought you meant regular models. Or that model said models failed significance tests. I still dont know to which regression models you are referring to. Im an econfag not a financefag. So the mathlet language is confusing to me. If you cant significance test regression models, because said regression test fails, how can you tell? Seems kinda catch 22 to me.

[Anonymous No.8637121]

>>8631995
>Made money off BTC/LTC while you were in middle school
translation : i sold at 1k in 2013

[Anonymous No.8637127]

>>8637106
*descrete.

[Anonymous No.8637151]

Im a semi hodler but not just out of choice.

Ive been burned many times selling because I think its dropping and got bogged. So ive held out of fear and lost to much ground to justify selling.

[Anonymous No.8637239]

>>8637106
>When did I say it is.
>>8636408
>I still dont know to which regression models you are referring to.
>>8635984
>the mathlet language is confusing to me
>from the guy dropping 99 buzzwords and 0 actual math
lol

[Anonymous No.8637296]

>>8637121
>He thinks selling at 1k in 2013 was a bad thing
translation: I bought bitcoin at 20k

[Anonymous No.8637352]

>>8637239
Right what about those models? If you put them in situations where all assumptions hold and them you can reject the null. There are ecconometrics papers testing this shit if you want. I don't understand what you are saying? Are you saying regression testing in and of itself fails? Cause it is a mathematically provable concept. I'm getting the vibe there is some finance model I am not privy to that you confusingly think is what regression testing is.

[Anonymous No.8637453]

>>8637296
bought at 80$ kiddo

[Anonymous No.8637531]

>>8637352
Here's what we've learned so far.
1. Your "strategy" is literally "buy more until it goes up"
2. You try to justify "buy more until it goes up" by throwing around undergrad jargon to pretend you've got some actual numbers backing your "strategy"
3. Even IF you had actual numbers backing your "strategy", all previous attempts at predictive market modelling have failed, reg testing, OLS, deep learning, tea leaves, ALL have failed.

[Anonymous No.8637590]

More like this.

[Anonymous No.8637621]

>>8637590
I am pic on the left.

[Anonymous No.8637687]

>>8637590
see >>8634996

[Anonymous No.8637777]

>>8637531
>1. Your "strategy" is literally "buy more until it goes up"
What a dumb fucking strawman. You keep denying any assumption of this like it is common sense. If you buy crypto it is because that is a +E(v) thing to do according to you. If the efficient price of btc is say $1k. And it is $800 but a downswing/variance brings it to $600. Assuming the expected price is still $1000. The next swing is not an independent event. Additionally I advocated taking profits since money has diminishing marginal utility you should take profits. Especially since again, there is a large variance on btc swings so don't all in on them. Now you then went full retard and insinuated I advocated buying btc when it is E(v)- or just blindly buying. In either of our "methods" people are buying btc because they have a reasonable expectation of price increase. Yet you then assume yours is based on magic know how and I am picking whatever model you don't like to assess it being e(v)+ for whatever reason. Im not telling you to buy BTC or that it is profitable. Im telling you how to do it if you think it is.
> You try to justify "buy more until it goes up" by throwing around undergrad jargon to pretend you've got some actual numbers backing your "strategy"
Lmao you legitimately didnt understand first year probability. That isnt jargon.
>3. Even IF you had actual numbers backing your "strategy", all previous attempts at predictive market modelling have failed, reg testing, OLS, deep learning, tea leaves, ALL have failed.
Idk how reg testing fails. You can fucking reg test anything. My birthday and dick size. Btc movements and the frequency of Seinfeld reruns. TA has some validity if we can have a reasonable level of assumptions, but I personally dont do it for Crypto or use it in blind faith. If you mean all financial models fail. They definitely do not. But I am not saying I can predict the future price. As I said i'm an econfag. Econfags hate forecasting.

[Anonymous No.8637835]

>>8632023
Your 2015 is showing

[Anonymous No.8637842]

>>8637777
>because that is a +E(v) thing to do according to you
Expected value is not an opinion retard
>That isnt jargon.
"Jargon" doesn't mean "hard words I don't understand" retard
>Idk how reg testing fails
In predicting the market. Anyone can build an Ad Hoc model with nice p-values

[Anonymous No.8637995]

>>8637842
>Expected value is not an opinion retard
No. But there are a million different ways we can calculate this some correct some not. I was never arguing which way or that it was or wasn't +e(v). We were literally talking about buying and selling btc. It is a given you buy when you believe it is e(v) positive don't when it is not. Since both of us advocated buying at some point. Both of us assumed e(v) posstive. And like e(v) variance is an objective number. And is objectively high in crypto. Hence why I don't advocate all in moves.
>"Jargon" doesn't mean "hard words I don't understand" retard
This projecting.
>In predicting the market. Anyone can build an Ad Hoc model with nice p-values
Well what are you testing it against. If you test actual price against models. Some will produce better p-values than other. That doesn't prove causation but it does mean something.... Again. I am vehemently opposed to financial forecasting.

[Anonymous No.8638064]

>>8637995
>there are a million different ways we can calculate this some correct some not
Calculating the expected value of Crypto is predictive market modelling. All previous attempts at predictive market modelling have failed, reg testing, OLS, deep learning, tea leaves, ALL have failed.
>I am vehemently opposed to financial forecasting.
>claims he's correctly calculated the future value of Crypto
LOL I'm done

[Anonymous No.8638189]

>>8638064
People value money more today then they do tommorow. This is called intertemporal spending. Everyone needs a time value of money incentive to invest. People are risk averse and do not see e(v) as e(u). This creates a risk premium people need to be compensated for. People are retarded and do not trade at Nash Equilibrium values. Thus creating a profitable explotation. People do not always have perfect information thus creating profitable explotation. There is relative significance in the finding of market psychology which is exploitable. Do you seriously think Warren Buffet just went " well economic forecasting is impossible Im just going to bet it all on red. No such thing as e(v) positive trades!" Furthermore e(v) does not mean actual value. It literal stands for expected value. You remind of those MAGA idiots who went to Nate Silver and say "hah you gave Donald Trump a 40% chance of winning you were wrong!" Or people who judge poker plays based on seeing all the cards and the runout.

[Anonymous No.8638193]

>>8637835
underrated post

[Anonymous No.8638346]

>>8638189
Calculating the expected value of Crypto is still predictive market modelling m8. It doesn't matter how much jargon you throw around.

[Anonymous No.8638357]

>>8638346
How said anything about calculating it?

[Anonymous No.8638390]

>>8638357
>If you buy crypto it is because that is a +E(v) thing to do according to you
>there are a million different ways we can calculate [expected value] some correct some not

[Anonymous No.8638521]

>>8638390
I have a question. If you don't believe you can extrapolate if said investment is e(v)+ or not? Do you just gamble for lulz? I mean chances are you have some method of dictating or deriving some assumption of if its value is positive or negative and just don't realize it. Crypto is a bit of a bitch because nobody really knows what it is. An investment vehicle? A good in and of itself? The problems are rife. A currency has no time value for instance, but it is rarely actually used as a good. Again why I am not making the inference if you should buy or not.
But I digress. Government binds are E(v) possitive (at least nominally) because of the time value of money. Stocks are E(v)+ because of that and a rism premium. Notice I made both these obvious deductions with no forecasting whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.8638592]

Amazon eGift Card $100
80% off ($20) add to your amazon balance! No expiration. Accepting crypto !
Purchase: https://satoshibox.com/spaj428d47mn3cr5k7pcsucx
I’m selling all my buttcoins for amazon cards ..

[Anonymous No.8638633]

>>8638521
>If you don't believe you can extrapolate if said investment is e(v)+ or not
obviously not since it has never ever succeed
>Do you just gamble for lulz
Not having a statistically significant mathematical prediction =/= random gambling retard. You're getting confused by your own buzzwords again

[Anonymous No.8638791]

>>8638633
I think you may be retarded. Assessing if something has a possitive expected value. Is not the same as trying to guess the actual value. Or even the fucking expected value. See my above to examoles of a stock and bond. See I understand what the time and risk premiums do to the expected value. All else being equal. There are many inferences you can make about this without actually trying to forecast. Hence why people invest.It is baffling to me you do not understand this.

[Anonymous No.8638845]

>>8633844

good point. I regret that I neglected the advice to sell at highs in January. I am going to fix any of my future X-es in Tether

[Anonymous No.8638863]

>>8638791
>Assessing if something has a possitive expected value.
Is done by calculating it. see >>8637842

[Anonymous No.8638884]

>>8638592
>https://satoshibox.com/spaj428d47mn3cr5k7pcsucx

Is this legit?

[Anonymous No.8638956]

>>8638863
I have a question. Oh kind mighty finance lord. The risk free rate of return increased, what isolated effect does this have on the value of a stock? Haha jk cant forecast we will never know!! If you said this would be e(v)+ you would be a dumbass. Can't predict the future!
What about if a firm is producing at MC=P and a second firm enters the market LAC=p how will this effect the incumbents stock value? If you guessed it would hurt values you are a dumbass!

[Anonymous No.8639055]

>>8638956
Aha, I think I understand. You seem to have confused the technical term "expected value" with the phrase "we expect the value to go down"
Maybe this grade school page will help you understand the technical term
https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/random-variables-mean-variance.html

If you have not made this confusion, please point me to the paper in which nobel prize winning paper where the first successful predictive market model is presented. I must have missed it

[Anonymous No.8639290]

>>8639055
I think it is somewhere in the middle. I feel like I was pretty clear the whole time I am not genius enough to assign an expected value to every investment. Like a mathematical value hence why I am putting e(v) without a number beside it. I am however putting a positive or negative sign to it. If you have a small monitor and could not see this I understand. I don't not know the expected value. But I know if it is positive or negative. I guess it's not in finance lingo even in econ we don't say e(v) positive all that much. But i started with a poker analogy and it is a common poker term. I am saying the Expected value of BTC in some day t Is greater than price on day<t. Thus you buy it.I buy it based on economic or financial inferences, and how they effect e(v) Not based on me actually solving the E(v). I said this like 100x. Aditionally if efficient market hypothesis holds 100% of the time. (Spoiler it doesnt) this would literally be all you need. Hence why I said you make investments based on if they are e(v)- or e(v)+ without realizing it. Aditionally I am making these based on information I have availble to me and tweaking it. For example. The E(v) of a poker play based on your range, is not the same as the e(v) based on your hand, Is not the same as expected value. Hence I can mathematically profit maximize without seeing your hand or predicting the run off... If I know the risk free rate of return is going up. I cant find the price of your firms stock because there are too many other factors. But if I go with the market portfolio I can more accurately figuire out the value increase. Even if the risk premium or someshit could change.

[Anonymous No.8639341]

>>8639290
>I am however putting a positive or negative sign to it
Expected value is not something you can guess based on your extensive knowledge of investopedia articles. see >>8638863

[Anonymous No.8639482]

>>8639341
Im not guessing it. I however know the effects events have on it. And can thus assign a + or -. Or some estimated value if you go all out. The problem with forecasting is always the lack of perfect information by both market participants and market analyzers, combined with variance, randomness, noise , we cant predict the future etc. Not because we do not understand mathematical relationships.

[Anonymous No.8639501]

>>8632023

[Anonymous No.8639619]

>>8639482
>can thus assign a + or -
Not unless you calculate it. Expected value is not an estimate, it's the exact value you get from the "sum of all possible values each multiplied by the probability of its occurrence.".
There's just no way around this buddy. You tried slinging random buzzwords for hours but it didn't work because you obviously don't even understand the most basic ones.

[Anonymous No.8639779]

>>8631995
Most of the time, average intelligence means investing in Tron at an ATH and flip BTC for ETH during the flippening

[Anonymous No.8639837]

>>8639619
>Not unless you calculate it. .
Sure you can. You just need to now if relationships are possitive or negative. When you make your investments you are maximizing your expected utility. But I will dumb that down a level. In the case of investment this is maximizing your return to a level you value having the money you are expected to earn be greater than your utility for having it today or your level of risk aversion. Now this means you have to believe that, dumbed down to the simplest descrete possibility. That means probability price increases(price increase)>probability price decreases(price decrease). Now whether or not you think like this, or not this is what you are doing. Just subconciously. Whether you have sufficient information to correctly assess this is unkown. How accurately you can assess it is unkown. The actual e(v) is unkown. However it has to be + for you to be making a good choice. Its that simple. If you are making a decision to invest you believe it is +. Even if you deny thinking this. You keep getting mad at me like basic terminology is Jargon and strawmanning me so I am done. This is some econ 103 shit so fuck off with the condescension.

[Anonymous No.8639878]

>>8639837
>You just need to now if relationships are possitive or negative
Which you don't know unless you calculate them.

[Anonymous No.8639910]

>>8631995
>the future can be known before it happens

[Anonymous No.8639921]

>>8639910
see >>8632728

[Anonymous No.8639950]

>>8639878
I have spent literally 6 years studying the relationship between different market factors. It has landed me a good job and good investments. But stay poor gambling it away like it is all random.
Increase in interest rates!?!? What effect will this have on anything!?!? Increase in money supply. Hope this increase my purchasing power! Cant predict the E(v) of USD tomorrow or real interest rates! Like I said its to my benefit you think like this so I am done.

[Anonymous No.8639988]

>>8639950
see >>8639341
No actual numbers to muliply = no expected value. That's it.

[Anonymous No.8639994]

>>8639921
Please, do tell what the price of apple stock will be at closing tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.8640003]

>>8639950
also see >>8638633

[Anonymous No.8640028]

>>8639988
If I add a x to another possitive number. And I know neither value. I know the value. I know the value is now >x. Thus this event is e(v)+. Magic I know.

[Anonymous No.8640087]

>>8640028
That's not how expected value is calculated. See >>8639055

[Anonymous No.8640136]

>>8640087
Ive said like 100x I am not calculating expected value.
You should study the great game of poker anon. It will gamify this type of thinking and help you better understand the world of imperfect information.

[Anonymous No.8640151]

>>8640136
>I am not calculating expected value.
>Thus this event is e(v)+
see >>8639619

[Anonymous No.8640332]

>>8640151
When you work with unknown variables in your 7th grade class do you like throw tantrums because you can't solve for x so all math around it must be useless? I dont know why I continued. The circle is repeated ad nauseum.
E(v) exists. I don't know it, you don't know it. Based on information we do know, we can assess how that information impacts said value. Using this we can model investment models and understand how market forces interact. E.g. we cant predict future nominal interest rates nor do we have an e(v) for them. But we do know increases in expected inflation rates will increase it. When you make an investment, unless you are risk loving, you are doing it on the assumption it is E(v)+. Whether you are right, wrong informed uninformed, consciously or subconsciously doing it you are doing it. That doesn't mean you calculated E(v) that doesn't mean it isn't an absolute value that a god with perfect information couldn't find. Now go talk in a circle somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.8640410]

>>8640332
Doesn't change how EV is calculated retard: "sum of all possible values each multiplied by the probability of its occurrence.". With 1 or more "possible value" containing x in it's expression.

[Anonymous No.8640449]

[Anonymous No.8640485]

>>8640410
Yes I am aware i literally used a basic discrete example to explain it to you. What is your point?

[Anonymous No.8640524]

>>8640485
>What is your point?
still >>8639619
x is not some magical thing that changes math. it just means now your EV is something like 35+2x instead of 47.

[Anonymous No.8640647]

>Doesnt use logarithmic charts
https://youtu.be/gROiPCeO8XA

[Anonymous No.8640652]

>>8640524
Exactly now you are getting it!
If you do not know the E(v) of nominal interest rates. However you now know inflation is likely to increase. Does this knowledge not increase the e(v).
Now. Billy buys bitcoin to resell later. What does that say about billy's belief of BTC value? If it makes it easier on your down syndrome, we can say billy thinks the price will increase. But Billy actually thinks the E(v) on that day is larger because he knows there is more than one possible outcome. Even though e(v) and price on instant x are static values.

[Anonymous No.8640785]

>>8640652
>If you do not know the E(v) of nominal interest rates. However you now know inflation is likely to increase. Does this knowledge not increase the e(v).
No there are no "sum of all possible values each multiplied by the probability of its occurrence." to even calculate it on. You've confused terms. see >>8639055.
The prediction of a retarded 1 variable model =/= expected value

[Anonymous No.8640867]

>>8640785
What? You can get e(v) on a continous probability. I can explain that to if you want. The one variable change. Adds to our understanding of the e(v) and thus helps us make better investment decisions. We do not no e(v) but it exists. And we are making decisions based on it. Even if you think you arent or are doing the opposite. You can even not know what the concept e(v) is but any profit maximizing decision is e(v)+. If you think it is profit maximizing. You think it is e(v)+.

[Anonymous No.8640957]

>>8631995
Pic related, it's me and why I hodl

[Anonymous No.8641064]

>>8640867
I don't know what retarded source you got your definition of expected value from, it's wrong. EV is "sum of all possible values each multiplied by the probability of its occurrence" and nothing else. The result is an exact expression, nothing else. "hurr durr unspecified increase" is what you get from a model or plain guessing. All the jargon you throw around just look ridiculous and sad when you don't even know the definition of grade school terms

[Anonymous No.8641133]

>>8641064
Again.
Yes and.
Are you esl? I actually don't think you can understand this common sense so I won't bother. Maybe I am bad at explaining but I feel like I am being straight forward. I am not saying I know or can calculate the E(v) with my limited information. I am saying it exiats and has a static value. I am saying parameters we do know and the ditection of relationships help us make informed investment decision. I am saying everyone who makes an investment THINKS it is e(v)+ consciously or subconsciously. And every profitable investment (over a large enough sample size) is obviously e(v)+ by a mathmatical necessity.

[None !eyZ.srqtOk No.8641172]

>>8631995
>BTC goes up
>$ value of portfolio goes up
>call top and short for tether
>ride shitwave down, the entire time your tether is increasing the amount of BTC you can buy
>rinse and repeat

you literally cannot lose if you are careful.
until the day tether is insolvent and that day will come mark my fucking words.

[Anonymous No.8641276]

>>8637590
>keeping 200k in a checking account

[Anonymous No.8641287]

>>8641133
>I am not saying I know or can calculate the E(v)
see >>8640151
>THINKS it is e(v)+
see >>8637842
>And every profitable investment (over a large enough sample size) is obviously e(v)+ by a mathmatical necessity.
This doesn't make any sense what so ever

Ok I see what happened. You want to impress with your big words so you picked one that you thought meant "I believe crypto will go up", and now you can't admit you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.8641309]

>>8631995
if you went in with your 40k$ study loan you can do that, if you come in with 1k$ you cant because the fees will fuck your shit up

[Anonymous No.8641343]

>>8641287
>this doesnt make sense.
Holy shit you are literally to stupid to insult. As a sample approaches infinity. E(v) approaches actual value. After infinite trials a good investment MUST has a positive expected value. Or else the actual value would be a loss. I am actually done now. I don't have time to teach yoh math 8 -12. This isn't my opinion this is like HS math.

[Anonymous No.8641363]

>>8641343
*actual value approaches expected value.

[Anonymous No.8641420]

>>8641343
>As a sample approaches infinity. actual value approaches expected value.
again, EV =/= prediction of a model see >>8640785

[Anonymous No.8641421]

what the fuck? you two have been at this for like 6 hours now.

[Anonymous No.8641429]

>>8641421
as a fun sidenote. I'm up 10% from shorting since we began, whereas mr hodl is down

[Anonymous No.8641460]

>>8641420
What model? Who the fuck said anything about a model. The expected value of am investment HAS to be positive to be profitable over a large sample size. That is not up for debate. You should not invest ever. I am not the one confused. This is literally stats 1.
>>8641429
>Shorting on something with low volume and high variance.
Oh god. Double the evidence he is retarded. Even if it is e(v) + like you unwittingly think it is. It is a malinvestment.
I thought maybe you were like a business student who hadn't taken stat yet or intermediate micro. But this is just sad.

[Anonymous No.8641519]

>>8641460
>What model?
>As a sample approaches infinity. actual value approaches expected value.
this is pretty much the Central limit theorem which is what OLS models are based on. It's not how you calculate EV.
>Double the evidence he is retarded.
>the guy making more money than me is retarded,
>j-j-ust y-you wait "buy more until it goes up" is foolprof. Y-you'll be sorry.

[chrisd .WQ4N.b2Nw No.8641543]

>>8631995
You are blind if you do not see. I have come back. I am the prestigious owner of a reputed crypto exchange and I legally own all your coins

[Anonymous No.8641557]

>>8641519
That is not OLS. That is a basic concept of Limits. A a HS principle. Has nothing to do with finding EV. More a characteristic of what it is. Of course if you have a large enough sample size you can solve backwards. But I digress.
>making more money.
I too base all my financial decisions on a sample size of 1 not even closed position. Come play poker with me anon! Heard someone won an all in with pocket 2s one time so its a good play!

[Anonymous No.8641580]

>>8641557
>That is not OLS. That is a basic concept of Limits
which is what OLS models are based on. LOL
>Has nothing to do with finding EV
That's what I said.
>More a characteristic of what it is
see >>8641420
>I too base all my financial decisions on a sample size of 1
You call people retarded on a sample size of 1