Work Space for Learning How to Research Stocks
(for Johnny Cash, and JK Rowling)
Spoiler:Current price is $13,457 - if it's all traders in the pool, technical analysis seems to show that other people who are using technical analysis will start selling around $13,700-$13,825?
Like maybe technical analysis doesn't really predict - but it can be helpful as an indicator of how a big portion of the market will tend to behave? Which can sometimes be nice to know, instead of always wondering?
To me he's referring to a question of self management and risk management.
4. People go on tilt. They have bad judgement. It is just human nature and there's nothing to be done about it. If you variable size, you wipe out your account on bad trades when you're on tilt or when your judgment is wrong. Large sizing tends to correlate with tilting - it happens in every field, from poker to trading to casino gambling.
These are some pretty basic principles of trading you need to understand. Smaller/standard sizing help you in the following ways:
- You feel no emotional pain at appropriately cutting losers
- You don't mind letting winners run, because it's not a huge amount of your stack and it doesn't have great emotional importance
- You're isolated from tilt. You cannot blow up your stack during the two tired or emotional or distracted days you're guaranteed to have a month.
- You're on an even keel, and all trades have the same basic mechanics. Keeping key things the same allows you to notice subtle anomalies and similarities. You get a richer, more nuanced feel for what's going on. This is just a general life rule, and it applies to trading to.
- Your stress levels are lower and you are more detached - you simply decide to enter or not, and how long to let it run for, without the agonizing decision of how much to bet and if you're missing out. Discipline is essential for a trader, because our minds and emotions and judgment is flawed in so many ways.I'm sure it all makes sense, but the reasoning was incorrect.
An easy, non-mathy way to understand it is that I'll offer you two wagers, and you can make the wager as often as you'd like and both are available to choose from:
1) You roll a die, and if it lands on 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 you double your remaining life expectancy (with corresponding healthiness in the added years). If it lands on 6, you die instantly.
2) You roll a die, and if it lands on 1, 2, 3 or 4, you add one day to your remaining life expectancy (same healthiness conditions apply). If it lands on 5 or 6, you lose one day of your remaining life expectancy.
I hope your intuition tells you (assuming that you like being alive) that the second bet should be made an infinite number of times, even though the EV of each bet is lower than the first by approximately one metric ****-ton, and the first bet should be made approximately zero times.
ton;53218916]all a function of how bankroll is managed. very analogous to poker. difference between the best and the worst is how they interpret the edge (the worst may be overconfident) and how they manage their downside (the best risk a fixed % and stick to it, the worst could risk it all under duress)[/QUOTE]to me LTCM is a good case study in the opposite direction, overconfidence, less the fact that they bet too much (tho i guess the principles are pretty intertwined).
it would be like having the heads/tails game but the coin lands heads 99.5% of the time (but the actual odds of the coin are not disclosed) and you have 1000 tosses. LTCM would be the group that's convinced that the coin never lands on tails and just goes all in every single toss.
to me it's less about LTCM having the balls to have skin in the game, it's more that they felt they built a system that literally couldn't lose, so why wouldn't you just go all in every single time if you knew you'd never lose? when in reality black swans are a thing and no such system exists. if LTCM had a system where it's 95% winners and not 100% winners you'd figure they would still probably underbet kelly... only by virtue of thinking they were at 100% were they the only ones who actually bet huge.
Right, but imagine you could just "get over it" and trade appropriately while taking larger size? You would crush the people who trade appropriately taking smaller size. Is this really such a hard thing to do?
Your position here is that doubling or more your EV is -EV. That's an extraodrinary leak...if you can work around even a part of the source of that leak, you're gonna do a lot better. Compounded it leaves the other strategies in the dust.
Imagine you bet 5% of your stack and double every trade.
Now compare with someone who has the same entries and exits and bets 10% of their stack and doubles every trade.
After 100 trades:
- Regular sizer has 131x his starting money
- Double size has 13780x his starting money
Basically, double size is 104 times richer than regular sizer.