# How to Double or Triple my money?



## db09striker (18 February 2017)

Hello everyone. I'm from the UK....

Not sure how I ended up here, but I guess I started looking at commodities and it led me to Australia and Australian companies. I assume you guys are the mining gurus?

I am a complete newbie to stocks / commodities which may just be about to be proved to you.....

I ideally need to double or triple my money within one year.

I fear that may be an unrealistic possibility, but I'll go on anyway.....

I have £70,000 GBP or $113,000 AUD. Ideally I would not want to pump the whole of my £70,000 into this, maybe £50,000 max.

*-*What is your advice on the best way of achieving this? Feel free to tell me I'm a flaming galah for even hoping to double/triple my money within a year.

Are commodity related stocks a good route to take? I have been looking into Uranium, Lithium, and I'm soon to look into Gold.

Would it be best to place my £50,000 this way:
£10,000 on my most bullish stock or commodity.
£35,000 split into lots of £5000 and invested into 7 different stocks/commodities.
£5000 invested into speculative picks in amounts of £1000 or £2000. 

I am prepared to go speculative and high risk with some stocks, but with low stakes of £1000-£2000. I am not too fussed about risking £5000 total on speculative investments.

I plan to do a lot of research before placing any money down.

It's not essential that I double or triple my money, but that would be the aim.

Or is it simply the wrong time to get into the stock market? Am I coming in at the wrong time. We are due a recession. The whole reason I want to double or triple my money is to buy a property. Maybe a recession will bring the ridiculous house prices in the UK down.

Any advice would be great. Thanks.


----------



## CanOz (18 February 2017)

You're a flaming galah! The name of the game is to manage risk, you're trying to manage the reward!

Little understood FACT : you can't manage reward, you can ONLY  manage risk!


----------



## db09striker (18 February 2017)

CanOz said:


> You're a flaming galah! The name of the game is to manage risk, you're trying to manage the reward!
> 
> Little understood FACT : you can't manage reward, you can ONLY  manage risk!




I see your point and will make sure I have risk in mind and look into risk management....

But don't investors have a goal in mind in terms of what reward they hope for?

I thought it best to have a goal in mind to then determine what types of stocks I invest in: high, medium, or low risk stocks.

I would not just lump in on one stock. I'd spread my money across a variety of stocks and have a diversified portfolio to help manage risk.


----------



## tech/a (18 February 2017)

db09striker said:


> I see your point and will make sure I have risk in mind and look into risk management....
> 
> But don't investors have a goal in mind in terms of what reward they hope for?
> 
> ...




I have a lot to say on this but I'm out of time right now
By diversifying you'll cut your risk and your potential profit.
Investing at best is likely to return 5-25% tops.
Any futures trader will tell you 100% is not impossible but they are trading.

More later


----------



## OmegaTrader (18 February 2017)

db09striker said:


> Hello everyone. I'm from the UK....
> 
> Not sure how I ended up here, but I guess I started looking at commodities and it led me to Australia and Australian companies. I assume you guys are the mining gurus?
> 
> ...





It is very hard and not practical in the long term

1) Take extreme risks which most likely will lead to overbetting and bankruptcy

2)Trade a very very short term time frame, more trades = more profit *or loss* in the same time period

3)Be extremely specialised in area, 
would have a massive opportunity cost in terms of time spent implementing and learning or would require additional resources depending on the strategy, eg fast computers, software, access to information. The big boys spend a fortune to get an advantage in this arms race to soak up the easy money.


Patience is the key, in reality one has to normally accept waiting like everybody else does 

7.2% over 10 years is ~x2 
7.2% over 20 years is ~x4
7.2% over 30 years is ~x8


----------



## Habakkuk (18 February 2017)

OmegaTrader said:


> It is very hard and not practical in the long term




Who's talking about the long term? He wants to do it in one year.

All he has to do is pick the right stock now. How difficult can it be?

The right stocks 12 months ago, all in the ASX 100 were:

FMG returned 266%
BSL returned 132%
S32 returned 123%
DOW returned 117%

or a little more adventurous

WHC returned 559% and was in the ASX 200

Of course you could have picked a wrong one like:

SGH returned -72.22%
BAL returned -62.75%
SRX returned -57.36%
EHE returned -55.73%


----------



## tech/a (18 February 2017)

Hab

I agree
I think he would be better off learning how to manage short term trades.

Use say 75% of equity in no more than 2 trades risking no more than 5% on each trade (Position sizing only)
and ratchetting his initial stop loss as quick as he can and dumping a position if it moves from profit to B/E in two days. There are around 60 stocks whos price has trebled at sometime in the last 12 mths with liquidity over $500K.
Staying with those on the move and dumping VERY quickly those that don't stay in profit.

He has to learn
Entry
Exit
Position sizing
Initial stop loss (You'd want to cut that initial 5% risk really quickly)
Ratchetting Initial Stop
Pyramiding

OR learning to trade index futures where he could trade up to 5 lots easily.

You couldn't work and be successful at either option. Would need 100% attention during all trading hrs.
Mind you in Futures you could have a 2 hr trading day--but you wont know when that is before hand.

He would need to spend a great deal of time on sim in either equities or futures.
Do able but would need to be very very good.
If he ended up being that good why would he stop at 1 year---and there lies another story.

By the way I'm a duck not a financial guru.


----------



## OmegaTrader (18 February 2017)

Habakkuk said:


> Who's talking about the long term? He wants to do it in one year.
> 
> All he has to do is pick the right stock now. How difficult can it be?
> 
> ...




Maybe you can double it for the first time but what about the second time or the third time when luck runs out. This type of thinking sounds more like a casino gambler....
Putting all your money in one stock as a first time investor is madness.
False hope is being given at the detriment of who???


----------



## Habakkuk (18 February 2017)

tech/a said:


> Hab
> 
> I agree
> I think he would be better off learning how to manage short term trades.
> ...





tech, you would agree that there is no possible way for a complete newbie to learn all this even if he took a whole year without trading, and that doesn't meet his objective.

I would go further and say that if a newbie was given a plan with absolutely clear rules and instructions for every action, be it end-of-day or whatever, they would still not be able to execute it reliably and consistently. I'm guilty of that myself.

And if someone was given an automatic trading system that runs all by itself on their own PC or even in 'the cloud', as soon they see a big drawdown they would pull the plug. One way is to prevent them from monitoring it, e.g. like a unit trust that sends you an annual statement.

Trembling Hand made a comment recently about 'The Janitors Dream', moving from the basement straight to the penthouse. That's the Newbies' dream as well.

Marcus Padley wrote a good article : Why Most Traders Lose

http://www.marcustoday.com.au/webpa...uid=5febee425ba37bbae6090475fd1baecf&id=30325

I hope the link works


----------



## Habakkuk (18 February 2017)

OmegaTrader said:


> Maybe you can double it for the first time but what about the second time or the third time when luck runs out. This type of thinking sounds more like a casino gambler....
> Putting all your money in one stock as a first time investor is madness.
> False hope is being given at the detriment of who???




He doesn't want a second or third time. He wants to double or triple his money only once in one year, by then the house prices in the UK will have dropped and he can buy a property.


----------



## tech/a (18 February 2017)

Habakkuk said:


> tech, you would agree that there is no possible way for a complete newbie to learn all this even if he took a whole year without trading, and that doesn't meet his objective.




Id say its highly unlikely.
The problem is newbies don't know what it is they *HAVE TO LEARN*.

They think its all about when to enter and when to exit.
That's the start and the end of the journey.

The stuff in the middle is where the profit is.

*EG*

--Quitting when its clear your initial analysis was incorrect---embrace recognising and admitting to being wrong as quick as you can. (minimising loss from your initial stop positioning---most just watch it get hit living in hope).
--Not over leveraging. If your using leverage learn how to use it *PROPERLY* without increasing you risk.
--Not putting too much of your account at risk. And when to put more at risk than you would normally.
--Knowing when to hold a trade and when to fold it.
--When to add to a trade.
--When to stop trading.

Of course all of this is answered for you with a sound system.
But knowing the above sure will help you design a good one.

*Spend a few hrs going over Pete 2s stuff.*


----------



## systematic (18 February 2017)

More chance of achieving your goal by betting it all on red of black in one spin...or Baccarat will also do the trick.  Or you could give yourself a high 64.8% chance of a 50% return by betting on 2 dozens or columns. Trouble is that the downside is a complete wipeout, so it depends on whether you're okay with that. 

More seriously, you're a confessed newbie and you want world beating returns.  You'd need to either be brilliant or a very lucky gambler.  People do go on runs (markets and casinos) and it certainly has happened.  

I'd encourage you to change your thinking on this whole endeavor and embrace a get rich slow mentality.  

Either way, good luck.


----------



## barney (18 February 2017)

systematic said:


> More chance of achieving your goal by betting it all on red of black in one spin
> I'd encourage you to change your thinking on this whole endeavor and embrace a get rich slow mentality.




Totally understand what you are saying here 'Sys' and please don't take this as confrontational, but, picking red or black is a world away from choosing a couple of well selected Speculative stocks that have the potential to rise exponentially if the ducks align .....  

Certainly not advising recklessness on the Op's part but there are often different ways to achieve a desired goal or result ... and being 'unconventional' can often be beneficial if you are aware of (and respect ... and accept if it goes wrong) ...  the risk/reward.  Cheers.


----------



## pettlepop (18 February 2017)

The best way to double or triple your money is to look at heavily oversold stocks with a relative strength (RSI) at or below the 20 mark.  One stock in mind at the moment is MBE (MOBILE EMBRACE LIMITED).  Its had 2 profit downgrades and 2 massive drops in share price.  Its now so oversold its a joke.  It has positive cash flow, money in the bank and is being treated like a debt stock.  This is the perfect stock to double or triple your money, even from a traders perspective.  It ticks all the boxes for a significant share price rise.  Take a look and see if you agree, if not I am happy for you to discuss otherwise.


----------



## barney (18 February 2017)

Firstly "RSI" indicator means bugger all ..... Secondly, when a stock is being beaten down while it is theoretically increasing profits ..... 

That is one stock I would definitely not put a large amount of cash on, sorry!!

PS IF it goes ballistic form now on good luck .... still a no go zone for me personally


----------



## OmegaTrader (18 February 2017)

Habakkuk said:


> He doesn't want a second or third time. He wants to double or triple his money only once in one year, by then the house prices in the UK will have dropped and he can buy a property.





It's not gonna happen at this point in time or ever unless he is a genius or lucky gambler ,full stop, the end.

The rest is all hot air.


----------



## db09striker (18 February 2017)

Thanks everyone for all your input.

I am not going to rush into anything. I need to go into this sensibly and understand the best way to approach it.

I'm not saying I have to double or triple my money, that would be the aim. If I made some profit I'd be happy enough. That said - I need to come up with a strategy that could potentially get me those 100% - 200% returns I need to fully factor in the risks before doing anything.

I disagree with equating my goals to a red/black roulette spin. It's unlikely that if I invested £50,000+ in the stock market that I would lose the whole lot like you can with red or black. I also have the option to place a small amount on speculative picks and get massive returns, so small risk big reward. Red or black is just 50:50 and that's it.

Continuing with the gambling theme. I do like a gamble, though I don't gamble often. When I gamble I always select an outsider. I place a small amount on an outsider who by logic has a chance of winning.

These are wins that I've had (I only placed a few pounds on them and won about £3000 total):
Maldonado winning the Spanish Grand Prix. 250-1    (25,000% profit)
Leicester to win the Premier League. 100-1.   (10,000% profit)
Ryan Giggs (footballer) to win Sportsman of the year. 66-1  (6,600% profit)

I don't really want to compare stocks to gambling on Sports, but from looking into stocks it's emphasising to me more than ever that these returns I got from those gambles were ridiculous. I knew they were good outside picks, but I am now realising what an absolutely massive return I got on them. These types of bets don't shout out to me all that often, maybe once every 2-3 years, next time I come across another one I am smashing £1000 on it. If it's a wild shot just to be able to double your money on stocks in 1 year, just get a 100% return, then gambling seems like a much better bet.

Anyway - as I like the idea of an outside gamble, I like the idea of a speculative gamble on penny stocks that could go ballistic. Risking relatively small amounts with a chance of big returns.

I am happy to risk £5000 on these speculative stock picks. I just need to find them and hope they work out. I could just focus on that strategy initially.

Any thoughts about Uranium stocks? - from research these stocks seem to being talked up a lot as something that has future demand and these stocks could take off soon.


----------



## stevo2 (18 February 2017)

A very good aim for your first year would be to finish the year with as much money as you started with.


----------



## So_Cynical (18 February 2017)

db09striker said:


> I would not just lump in on one stock. I'd spread my money across a variety of stocks and have a diversified portfolio to help manage risk.




You are a Galah and spreading money wont help as it will lower returns in general..you're only hope is a single stock thus a hundred to one shot, something smallish and somewhat speculative, not necessarily a mining stock.


----------



## systematic (18 February 2017)

db09striker said:


> I disagree with equating my goals to a red/black roulette spin.




Read more carefully.  I didn't equate your goals to a roulette spin.  I'm not talking theory, I'm talking about *you*.  (sidenote: this is the beginner's forum and I am trying to help.  I have gone as far as to scold other well-known members for being unhelpful or sarcastic in the beginner's forum, as it is such an insult to the honest people who appropriately place their post in the correct forum!)

So, let me correct your thinking about what I said and hopefully I'll be more clear this time...
Forget theory, I'm talking about you.

I do not believe that you are better than 48.65% chance of trading your way to a 100% return over the next 12 months.  Therefore, a bet on red or black would be better (the assumption being that you accept the downside).  I get what you say about not expecting to lose all your money in one hit in the market, but that depends on how you are going to try and, 'reach for the stars'.  In trying to shoot for ultra high returns like that, you're going to have to do something exceptional (one example would be, pick a mining stock about to double).  You could lose a lot in that case.  But also, even if you weren't quite that aggressive, I'd punt on you losing your capital slowly, over time (much like a slot machine player).

I'm just saying - on a purely 'best bet' basis...I think you'll more likely hit your goal of 100% in 12 months by betting on red/black as opposed to trying to trade stocks to get there.

The last part of your comment (asking for opinions on uranium stocks) shows that you are all over the place.

I wish better things for you; so I hope I get you thinking is all


----------



## db09striker (18 February 2017)

stevo2 said:


> A very good aim for your first year would be to finish the year with as much money as you started with.




That would be absolutely useless for me. House prices here are going up £15,000 per year. I'll be losing £15,000. It is impossible to keep up with that rise. My aim is to buy a house. I can't and I definitely won't be able to if I just leave my money sitting in the bank.

What I don't get about people's views on stocks is - it seems it's either one way or the other, it's either:

1. Don't get involved - it's too risky.

or

2. You're an idiot if you leave your money sitting in a bank account. Everyone should invest in stocks.


You obviously think my goals are set too high, but you're obviously interested in stocks otherwise you wouldn't be here.

Why not advise me what a more realistic goal would be and how to approach stocks instead of telling me to leave my money in my bank?

I'm here for constructive advice, and I'm fine with people telling me I'm unrealistic and I'm fine with people being blunt with me. If the general consensus is that I need to lower my goals - then I am open to do that. I am not saying I have to make a 100% return no matter what. I'm here for advice on how best to approach stocks with my aims in mind.

I am happy to spend £5000 on speculative stocks. I am happy to risk this money. It will not affect me if I lose it. I'll still have £70,000 in the bank, it's not like I'm going to be struggling in life. I need to take a risk. Losing £5000 won't make a difference to my life - a speculative stock going crazy will change my life.

I am happy to put money on speculative stocks that may not come in this year, but maybe, in 2 or 3 or 4 years time assuming they could go ballistic. I can wait longer.

Has anyone on here got any penny stock picks that stand out to them that I could look into?


----------



## systematic (19 February 2017)

db09striker said:


> Has anyone on here got any penny stock picks that stand out to them that I could look into?




I was about to 'like' your post as it said a lot of good things, until I read your last sentence! 

Anyway, I'll address your very thoughtful post...

I'm firmly in the camp of '2' - you should invest in stocks!! Don't leave your money in the bank!!
But the 'dont get involved, it's too risky' applies to 'picking stocks' when you dont know what you're doing!

Invest in stocks, but do it in a get rich slowly manner.  If you're young enough, then time and investing rate might matter more than you're return.  If you don't know what you're doing; buy the index.  You can get rich being  'average'

Don't try and solve a shorter-term problem (gotta buy a house in 12 months) with a long-term solution (investing).

Now you are changing your tone a bit (which is positive!).  You're saying you maybe want to put a small amount into speculation; fine go at it!  But; what's your 'edge?'   I've shared a couple of stories in my time here of spectacular returns by others investing in the right mining stock at the right time; but what's your edge?

Suddenly, your second last sentence - now suggests your willing to be a patient investor!  Great! I'd suggest you embrace learning all you can and becoming a 'stock picker'.  Or, perhaps, a leveraged trader.  See how those options require knowledge, skills and experience?

No one is going to give that to you, you have to get it for yourself.

BTW, you are lowering the return expectation.  If you're happy to double your money in 5 years, you're now 'only' asking for a (still market beating) 15% return.

I encourage you to think about what you actually want.  Are you wanting a chance of acheiving your goal in 5 minutes?  Bet it on red/black.  Are you wanting to save, invest and retire with more wealth?  Investing with a long-term game plan is the go.  Do you need money to buy a house in 12 months time?  Fixed-interest for you


----------



## OmegaTrader (19 February 2017)

db09striker said:


> Thanks everyone for all your input.
> 
> I am not going to rush into anything. I need to go into this sensibly and understand the best way to approach it.
> 
> ...





db09striker said:


> That would be absolutely useless for me. House prices here are going up £15,000 per year. I'll be losing £15,000. It is impossible to keep up with that rise. My aim is to buy a house. I can't and I definitely won't be able to if I just leave my money sitting in the bank.
> 
> What I don't get about people's views on stocks is - it seems it's either one way or the other, it's either:
> 
> ...





1) I also like gambling on sports betting. In general long shots can have a potential for a higher return but unfortunately most of the time have a lot more volatility due to the fact of having a lower probability of winning. This means that in general the position sizing should be lower for long shots when using a fixed fractional system such as kelly of half kelly. Along with the fact that losses hurt capital more than gains. So alot of the time one big win doesn't tell the whole story. Without the reduced position sizing to account for the risk it truly is gambling. A few big wins does not indicate an edge and placing a large amount of a few low probability outcomes is too risky.


2.) I remember reading a book by professional gambler David slansky years ago. The crux of his quote(verbatim of course) was this... People always ask me what to do in a certain situation with a king and a 5 in texas holdem, do I bet? do I raise? do I fold?  He replies with,

*This is not what you should be thinking about
*
You should be thinking about  the whole situation, your opponent/s, your postion, your stack size, the structure of the game etc etc.

Now in your example are asking for stock picks without an understanding of the market.
*This is not what you should be thinking about*

You should be thinking about your edge, your advantage, where it is coming from, what the basis of your strategy is, what your analysis is telling you, what is your risk management telling you.

You need to think about what you want out the market and have realistic expectations. Do your own research and find a strategy that works for you.

Not just asking for a few tips from strangers and gambling 5-10k on them after limited research.

3)




> Why not advise me what a more realistic goal would be and how to approach stocks instead of telling me to leave my money in my bank?





A financial adviser will tell you most likely to just invest in a diversified fund such as an index fund or etf. Along with other asset classes. The benefit is no incurring transactional fees, taxation disadvantages and uninformed decisons from trading. The downside is that you are in effect the market and betting on the future of the market and more generally the country as a whole. If the economy goes down the gurgler, eg Greece then so does the market and ones stock portfolio and that can happen to property as well.

In australia ~7+% sounds like a reasonable number for asx200/all ords return. Volatility a limited measure of risk would be about 12-14% standard deviation. Th GFC set the market to a drop of around 50% from the high mark, that is the more extreme end of the spectrum.

If one wants to get a higher return then either risk can be increased or using a strategy with a higher edge. Gearing and increasing risk can only be used so much for so long before it negatively affects the returns and  capital of the investor.


To have an edge and create alpha or risk adjusted returns  would require time, mistakes, blood sweat and tears, unless you can pay a so called genius to do this for you it will not be easy. One needs to take responsibility for their own strategy and financial future and put in the hard yards. There is no easy way out unfortunately.

two cents


----------



## tech/a (19 February 2017)

Striker is approaching this from a Gamblers view point.
He knows every year there will be a few stocks which
Go ballistic. He (and most here ) would love to be on one
Or two.

We---are looking at this from either an investors or Traders
View point. We know how to survive,we know gamblers
and their money disappear quickly---those of us who have
Been on this site for many years have seen it happen time
And again.

Truth is Striker will need to be lucky. In two ways
Surviving--- which includes giving up--and achieving
His goal.

Striker you really need to study the maths given to you by
Guys like Systematic and Omega

Think about this
70000 wrong 10 times and lose 1% each time
Right once and win 100%

What most gamblers do is become locked in trades losing 10% or more ---- not prepared to liquidate the loss ( it's not a loss until you take it --- right ---WRONG). So they get trapped in bad trades ( bets ).

Losing brokerage or at worst 1% of capital 20 times and getting
One or two right is what you need to become very good at.

Spreading your self thinly with your capital will not see you achieve your goal.

200% of $5000 is $10000 ( sorry I don't have a pound key )

200% of $35000 is your 70K and in my example 20 losses to get 1 win costs about 15000 including brokerage.

So there is the theory
In practice riding a stock 200 % is pure luck
Eg
Your in profit 100% the stock re traces 35% in a week do you hold or sell at 65% profit?
Chances are if you are just gambling this will happen

(1) you'll sell to crystallise profit and 2 weeks later the stock will be up $150 %
OR
(2) you'll decide to hold and the stock will fall over the next 2 weeks to a loss.

Good luck you'll need it.

Within a month of getting started you'll know exactly where I'm coming from.


----------



## barney (19 February 2017)

systematic said:


> Read more carefully.  I didn't equate your goals to a roulette spin.  I'm not talking theory, I'm talking about *you*.
> 
> So, let me correct your thinking about what I said and hopefully I'll be more clear this time...
> I do not believe that you are better than 48.65% chance of trading your way to a 100% return over the next 12 months.  Therefore, a bet on red or black would be better (the assumption being that you accept the downside).
> I'm just saying - on a purely 'best bet' basis...I think you'll more likely hit your goal of 100% in 12 months by betting on red/black as opposed to trying to trade stocks to get there.




Thanks for the clarification Sys ..... 

To try and paraphrase ..... the style of trading (Specs, Futs, whatever) is not what gets a trader in the poop house ..... but the traders approach and execution certainly can


----------



## galumay (19 February 2017)

From an investors point of view, one of the hardest parts of realising multibaggers is that there is often a significant drawdown on the way. A trader will sell out when the price drops, many investors will sell out in fear as well. I have a number of multibaggers that suffered significant drawdowns over the first year or two I held them, but I held my nerve, didnt realise the paper loss and if I was confident of the business case, averaged my cost down. It takes a lot of confidence in your strategy and a personality that can bear the drawdowns before the rewards. 

As an investor it would take extraordinary luck to have a return like you are chasing, as I read it the Duck is saying much the same from a trading perspective - so whatever approach you take it seems the concensus is that it would take a lot of blind luck to see the sort of returns your desire. Logically these sort of returns in the timeframe you desire have to be extremely uncommon/unlikely or we would all be very wealthy!


----------



## dutchie (19 February 2017)

Speaking from experience it is possible to double your capital in less than 12 months using highly leveraged CFD's.
Speaking from experience it is possible to lose all your capital in less than 12 months using highly leveraged CFD's.


----------



## howardbandy (19 February 2017)

Here are some videos you can watch.  "The Four Faces of Risk" might be a good one to start with.  
http://www.blueowlpress.com/video-presentations

Define your personal risk tolerance, then develop trading techniques that give the best return while holding drawdown to within your tolerance.  The drawdown tolerance of conservative professional money managers is about 10%.  For gunslinger traders, perhaps 20%.    

Trading is a zero sum game, perhaps adjusted by 1% or 2% in the direction of the change in the economy of the country of the stocks you are trading.  Your trading competition -- the organization taking the other side of your trades -- is Goldman Sachs, David Shaw, and James Simons.  Their profit comes directly from other traders.  

There are no challenger tournaments -- all traders compete in the same arena.  No handicaps for novices.  No do-overs.  

The most probably rate of return for a beginner for the first few years of trading is -100%.  Only a few well seasoned professionals return +20% consistently.

I recommend that every wannabe trader read or reread these two books before opening a brokerage account:
1.  Daniel Kahneman, "Thinking Fast and Slow."  Dr. Kahneman explains how we fool ourselves.
2.  Malcolm Gladwell, "Outliers."  Expect to invest 10,000 hours of high quality training and practice to become really good at anything.  To become a good trader, 10,000 hours is a low estimate.     

Best,  Howard


----------



## dutchie (19 February 2017)

howardbandy said:


> To become a good trader, 10,000 hours is a low estimate.



Spot on Howard.


----------



## Trembling Hand (19 February 2017)

howardbandy said:


> I recommend that every wannabe trader read or reread these two books before opening a brokerage account:1......
> 2.  Malcolm Gladwell, "Outliers."  Expect to invest 10,000 hours of high quality training and practice to become really good at anything.  To become a good trader, 10,000 hours is a low estimate.




Sorry Howard but that 10,000 hours 'rule' have been well and truly debunked. Mostly using scientifically robust methods unlike Anders Ericsson who came up with the theory.  Its utter BS. The Outliers book was populous clap trap that few in the performance fields would agree with.

I'm surprised as a data scientist you would recommend such flawed theory!


----------



## howardbandy (19 February 2017)

Hi TH --

I have read the discussions about Galdwell's thoughts.  I agree that for some skills, proficiency does not take 10,000 hours.  Based on my own experience and on my work with traders and systems developers, every skilled (read profitable) trader has taken at least that much.  And systems developers Much more than 10,000.  10,000 is "only" a four year university program or four year apprenticeship.  Mastery of most skills require at least that much training, education, and post education experience.

One of the aspects of trading that is different than many professions is that results are immediate and scored in dollars -- dollars paid by the loser of the trade.  Being average is not good enough when the likes of Goldman Sachs are vacuuming up the losses of all but the best trading counterparties.

Best,  Howard


----------



## Trembling Hand (19 February 2017)

howardbandy said:


> Hi TH --
> 
> I have read the discussions about Galdwell's thoughts.  I agree that for some skills, proficiency does not take 10,000 hours.  Based on my own experience and on my work with traders and systems developers, every skilled (read profitable) trader has taken at least that much.



Howard I can only think that you must have a small data set. I've seen time and time again in prop training of new traders you get 20 in the class 14 are non responders and are booted - 5 are average responders and are around breakeven or a bit better after the first year and then every 1 in 20 or maybe 1 in 50 are are taking 10- to 20 g monthly out of the market after their first 1 or 2 years some more!! It just doesn't hold the 10,000 hours. There is fast responders everywhere in the world - trading is particularity suited to finding them *because of what you are saying* " results are immediate and scored in dollars -- dollars paid by the loser of the trade."

The whole retail industry is built around keeping hope for the average and the non-responders so year after year they step up. Unfortunately when they going looking for answers after wasting years of time they get that BS about just a few more 1000s of hours!

Would be nice if a few more experts acknowledged the most likely outcome from the data....... ya probably aint gonna make it kid.


----------



## tech/a (19 February 2017)

What those results are from wanna bes straight off the street no hours spent prior to trading prop?

How many hrs did you put in to get to consistent profit?


----------



## barney (19 February 2017)

I think maybe the first 9000 hrs is spent working out that we have been wasting our time chasing shadows. 

If traders had access to good mentors from the outset you'd have to think the stats on the "time it takes" would be a lot lower ....

On the flip side, no amount of schooling at anything will make you great if you don't have the raw ingredients to start with ..... it can make you better or good, but not great.  Great is a rare commodity  ...  Personally I'll be totally satisfied to end up in the semi "good" category lol


----------



## Trembling Hand (19 February 2017)

tech/a said:


> What those results are from wanna bes straight off the street no hours spent prior to trading prop?




Greatly varied backups. A few out of uni from maths/biz degrees but thats because thats mostly what apples to prop. Quite a few are just plain old street fighters like myself . No formal ed, had a try punting with an account - mostly leveraged. Online Poker players are normally good.

But the point is if you test the 10,000 hour of deliberate practice with real world data in most fields your hypothesis will be disproven on the first pass. The truly great will have taken a lot less time than 10000. And the rubbish will still be rubbish after a life time of work. Think how many crap tradesmen there is. 



> How many hrs did you put in to get to consistent profit?




I reckon a few years part time and it became my full-time 'job'. That doesn't mean that there hasn't been some Nasty lean years in between though. So maybe I still need some more hours!


----------



## Trembling Hand (19 February 2017)

By the way.... Some numbers about 10,000 hours..

Full-time
8 hours a day x 5 days a week x 48 weeks a year = 1920 hours per year. 5.2 years full-time!!!
Part-time 
3 hours a day x 6 days a week x 50 weeks a year = 900 hours per year. 11.1 years part-time!!!!!!!!!

Its good news that the rule is rubbish. 
11.1 years!!!


----------



## tech/a (19 February 2017)

10000hrs is a number used to explain a concept of time and experience.
Some are genius's and in all fields there are very few.
Most of us took a lot longer and some never travel their road.

Point is if you want out there results best you understand what you need to understand.
In ANY field


----------



## jjbinks (19 February 2017)

tech/a said:


> 10000hrs is a number used to explain a concept of time and experience.




+1. 
The point in gladwells book and the 10,000 hour rule is that you need a certain amount of time and experience to gain expertise. I think this applies to any area where there is requirement for pattern recognition. (e.g. cricketer knowing deciding what shot to play before the ball reaches them, or a experienced physician making the most of limited time to make a diagnosis in 10min vs what would take a beginner, or a programmer when solving problems having the programming language as second nature). 
More to the point it argues that those who are successful in life had some luck sure but also had to spend a lot of time to become an expert.
I think people misintepret the book and think you need 10,000 hours to learn anything. Obviously this is untrue. You can get a basic grasp of many things whether that be trading, playing an instrument, programming etc in  less than 50-100 hours. But that basic grasp may allow you for personal enjoyment of playing a guitar, or do some small programming tasks, but is not going to obviously get you to the same level as a professional.


----------



## Trembling Hand (19 February 2017)

tech/a said:


> 10000hrs is a number used to explain a concept of time and experience.




Actually Tech since you use it all the time it would be good if you understood what it is. Its not a "number used to explain a concept of time and experience." at all. I can pretty much guarantee you that unless you know any world class athletes or concert pianist you have never meet anyone who has actually satisfied the 10,000 hour rule that everyone keeps on talking about... incorrectly. It is a debunked theory developed by Dr Ericsson who is a psychologist. It originally applied to deliberative practice that is not experience, not by a long shot. Deliberative practice is something that very very few will do anymore than a few hours of during their lifetime. Then with Gladwell's book it has been completely misused to be 'good/expert' at something. So its misconstrued of a debunked idea!! Talk about useless. But that hardly matters. None of us have to aim for world class performance to make good money from the market. Its not like its only Simons, Soros and the 3 best big swinging dicks on the Goldman desk are the only ones making money. 

So good news! 10,000 hours is rubbish - better to focus on what is real and achievable.


----------



## galumay (19 February 2017)

Trembling Hand said:


> So good news! 10,000 hours is rubbish - better to focus on what is real and achievable.




The 10,000 hours is rubbish - for the very reasons you make. But, and the big but is, no one gets really good at anything without loads of hard work practice and application - and i guess the 10K hours comment is a lazy way to make the point. If you study almost any human endevour, sporting, musical, intellectual, you will find inate talent plays a small part - its the growth mindset combined with blood sweat and tears that produces outlier outcomes.

Of course all of that is still no guarantee of a positive or desired outcome!


----------



## tech/a (19 February 2017)

Ok like the guy who got his card ( Golf ) from 10000 hrs of applied practice.
Personally I take a while to learn stuff.


----------



## db09striker (19 February 2017)

Don't worry guys. I've found the one.

LRS (Latin Resources).

I'm going to be doubling my money soon. Or should I say, I'll be turning a small investment into a massive amount of sweet dollar$.

Give it a few months and I'll be there or there abouts in terms of reaching my goals. If not, then I'll be wacking my dollar into the next speculative pick. And if not that, then then next one, until I've used up £5,000. If I fail I'll just give up and become a Gigalo.

Good luck to all in 2017.


----------



## barney (20 February 2017)

db09striker said:


> Don't worry guys. I've found the one.
> 
> LRS (Latin Resources).   I'm going to be doubling my money soon. Or should I say, I'll be turning a small investment into a massive amount of sweet dollar$.




Its definitely pump and dump material ..... how much do you have riding on it and do you have an exit strategy?


----------



## ggkfc (20 February 2017)

This seems like some r/wallstreetbets material


----------



## tech/a (20 February 2017)

*Striker is this you? 1.5 mill.LRS.*


----------



## OmegaTrader (20 February 2017)

db09striker said:


> Don't worry guys. I've found the one.
> 
> LRS (Latin Resources).
> 
> ...




Oh well you got what you want.

A quick gamble and attention. They also offer this at crown casino.

You may have to learn the hard way ..

I hope it works.

good luck anyway


----------



## systematic (20 February 2017)

tech/a said:


> *Striker is this you? 1.5 mill.LRS.*




I think Striker is only risking 5k pounds on his stock picks - from how I read it (but, who'd know?)


----------



## tech/a (20 February 2017)

Yeh I know
Bit tongue in cheek
Its a 18000 pound buy.
5000 pounds wont turn to 70000 in a real hurry.

Trying to double or triple your money and only using
7% of it is a tough gig.


----------



## Triathlete (20 February 2017)

Trembling Hand said:


> Sorry Howard but that 10,000 hours 'rule' have been well and truly debunked. Mostly using scientifically robust methods unlike Anders Ericsson who came up with the theory.  Its utter BS. The Outliers book was populous clap trap that few in the performance fields would agree with.
> 
> I'm surprised as a data scientist you would recommend such flawed theory!




I will throw my two cents in here....based on my own experience around 450 hours is required of the following and to be profitable.

Market analysis....50 hours
Chart analysis......80 hours
Trend analysis.....130 hours
Price analysis......80 hours
Pattern analysis..110 hours

A further 1275 hours study to focus on including

Elliott wave principles
Psychology
Constructing Portfolios
Developing an Operational trading plan.
Applying Time analysis
Applying principles of Contracts for Difference
Trading CFDS
Managing risks of CFDS

*Total hours...1725 hours.*

Based on my own results over the previous 2 and 1 years and trading only ASX 150 stocks

*2years                    1 year
Total trades.....................................................................46............................19
Winning trades...............................................................36.............................13
Losing trades..................................................................5................................2
Open Trades....................................................................5................................4
Win / Loss Ratio.............................................................87.8%......................86.7%
Ave Profit on Win Trades...............................................154%........................79.8%
Ave Loss on Losing Trades.............................................82.1%......................28.4%
Net overall Profit (Loss) on money outlaid...................126.4%....................66.6%
Ave Days in Trade............................................................114...........................22*

My trading is mainly based on taking discretionary positions from weeks to months.......Whether my results continue over the long term only time will tell......


----------



## barney (20 February 2017)

Triathlete said:


> My trading is mainly based on taking discretionary positions from weeks to months ....




Good Stats Triathlete and well done.

Just for the benefit of the thread ..... In the last 2 years of successful trading ... and only if you care to divulge ... your worst 2 trades and your best 2 trades were??   Cheers.


----------



## Habakkuk (20 February 2017)

Triathlete said:


> *Ave Loss on Losing Trades.............................................82.1%......................28.4%*




That must be a typo, surely. It couldn't be the *average* loss ... ?


----------



## Trembling Hand (20 February 2017)

Habakkuk said:


> That must be a typo, surely. It couldn't be the *average* loss ... ?



Unless it is % of R


----------



## Mr J (20 February 2017)

howardbandy said:


> I agree that for some skills, proficiency does not take 10,000 hours.  Based on my own experience and on my work with traders and systems developers, every skilled (read profitable) trader has taken at least that much.




Consistently profitable within ~800hrs. Pure screen-time, no theory. Surrounded by people that did the same.


----------



## stevo2 (20 February 2017)

thank goodness you found one, now we can all stop worrying.


----------



## db09striker (3 March 2017)

So, this beginner (me) is continuing on my journey to doubling my money, which many veterans think is very very unlikely, and that I'll be lucky to make 25%......

I'm trying to at least make £50,000 this year, though it doesn't necessarily have to be this year as stocks may be better off holding for longer.

I could have doubled my money already, but the timing wasn't right. Just missed out on a stock I would have invested in if I had found the information earlier. To be honest - It doesn't seem that hard to wack £10,000 on a stock and turn it into £30,000. I have found many good sources who give out solid in depth information about companies and inform you if they think the companies stock they are writing about is likely going to multiply. It doesn't seem like Rocket Science. Plenty of information out there to come to a logical decision on where to place your money.

So I've added another stock to my amazing portfolio:

*Nippon Dragon Resources*: A Canadian mining company who have developed and patented drilling machinery that can reduce the cost of mining precious metals by up to 60%. 

Stock Price: $0.10 Canadian

I've purchased 70,000 shares.

That stock getting up to $0.60 would almost be good enough to get me on my way to doubling my £50,000. How hard can it be.

My already held stock........

*Latin resources*: An Australian mining company, mining for Lithium in South America. Sitting on top of 300 square miles of land in the 'lithium triangle'. Awaiting results of % of lithium within pegmatites, should know in next few days. If results are good, I could be on my way to £40,000 with this stock.

Stock Price: $0.19

192,000 shares owned.

Not sure about this stock above, jumped on it quite early. Was featured on the-next-small-cap. It could go either way. If the upcoming results are positive it could go huge as the land they hold is extensive. It would be one of the largest owners of hard rock lithium in the world. Hard rock contains higher quality lithium and it can be bought to market quicker than Brine.


Taking my time to pick out the next stock. At some point I'll just smash £10,000 on something that's clearly going to rise rapidly in the near-term. It seems fairly easy to find these. Find a good article that gives in depth analysis, find a good forum that is discussing the same company to see what the sentiment is and if it's positive - go for it. BOOM - £20,000, £30,000, £40,000 returns within weeks.

I will let you know when I'll be doing this so you can see that the stock market isn't really that tough. I'll tell you what I'm putting my money on and you will see if I noob it up or swim in the dollar.


----------



## galumay (3 March 2017)

db09striker said:


> I will let you know when I'll be doing this so you can see that the stock market isn't really that tough.




Thanks, that will be good. I must just be unlucky, I find it quite tough.



db09striker said:


> It doesn't seem like Rocket Science.




Ok, damn, all that reading and learning I did was just a waste then?!



db09striker said:


> I have found many good sources who give out solid in depth information about companies and inform you if they think the companies stock they are writing about is likely going to multiply




Aghh...thats what i was missing! 

Overall I am just in awe, keep it coming!


----------



## minwa (3 March 2017)

db09striker said:


> I could have doubled my money already, but the timing wasn't right.




I could have beat Trump if I ran for the elections, but the timing wasn't right.


----------



## tech/a (3 March 2017)

> I have found many good sources who give out solid in depth information about companies and inform you if they think the companies stock they are writing about is likely going to multiply




No seriously they are great.

Its so easy just got to get on one that's right and you'll never look back.
You hear about it all the time.
People come on and rave and a few months later someone else
does the same.
The people who first post never return they must be so busy
with their cash that there is no need to chat to the masses.

I've even seen these sort of things in Magazines and on TV.
Seminars, lectures glossy brochures.
So many happy people. Living the dream.

Really it *IS* that simple.
Trump won the elections and the Dow went ahead 1000 points in the quickest
time ever recorded. There it is right there!!----Just guess he missed the timing again.

Gamblers don't think they are gambling.
Pros know their edge.---- (Even Pro "Gamblers").
Pros know an edge when they see one.
Anyone see one?


----------



## barney (3 March 2017)

tech/a said:


> Pros know an edge when they see one.
> *Anyone see one?*




I see a potential edge .... a sharp slippery one

Of course luck can't be discounted in a Bull trend ... and we have one of those at the moment so you never know!

"Striker" ........ Just on *Nippon Dragon Resources*: .......


In October 2017 the Company entered into a "pre-paid” gold production agreement.  They get their money up front for future gold delivery. If they don’t deliver the gold on time (60 days) they get heavy penalties-payment. The agreement started in October 2016  *As at December 31, 2016, no gold delivery has been made. *

 The share capital of the Company consists only of fully paid common shares.  Ie. *They have bugger all cash!*

They are *raising capital virtually every month to stay afloat*!

On *October 4*, *2016*, the Company completed a non-brokered private placement of 3,476,250 units of the Company at a price of $0.08 per unit

On *November 22, 2016*, the Company completed a non-brokered private placement of 3,333,334 units of the Company at a price of $0.075 per unit

On *December 14, 2016*, the Company has reached a settlement with Desjardins-Innovatech for the repayment of an outstanding debenture totalling $249,995 plus *accrued interest of $42,829 as at November 30, 2016. *

On *December 23, 2016*, the Company completed a non-brokered private placement of 4,572,400 units of the Company at a price of $0.075 per unit,


Their technology might be ground breaking (excuse the pun)  but personally I'd be taking a wide birth.


----------



## tech/a (3 March 2017)

db09striker said:


> It doesn't seem like Rocket Science.




*No and below isn't rocket science either.*



barney said:


> They are *raising capital virtually every month to stay afloat*!
> 
> On *October 4*, *2016*, the Company completed a non-brokered private placement of 3,476,250 units of the Company at a price of $0.08 per unit
> 
> ...


----------



## pinkboy (16 March 2017)

db09striker said:


> So, this beginner (me) is continuing on my journey to doubling my money, which many veterans think is very very unlikely, and that I'll be lucky to make 25%......
> 
> I'm trying to at least make £50,000 this year, though it doesn't necessarily have to be this year as stocks may be better off holding for longer.
> 
> ...




Down 20-25% on both stocks at present after 2 weeks.

"This stock market thing isn't really that tough....................."

"BOOM.....negative returns within weeks"

pinkboy


----------



## So_Cynical (17 March 2017)

db09striker said:


> So, this beginner (me) is continuing on my journey to doubling my money, which many veterans think is very very unlikely, and that I'll be lucky to make 25%......




Turns out you should of bought POT stocks, most of the cannabis stocks are screaming up, RGI up 37% and CPH up 50% yesterday, CPH went sideways at 25c for months then woosh!


----------



## db09striker (17 March 2017)

Just updating you on my portfolio. Again my aim: I have £70k saved and want to double my money or at least make £50k profit within a year, although it may take a bit longer as these are all long term investments.

So far I've invested £10,400:

Internet of Things: £4000   @ $0.155 CAD

Macarthur Minerals: £2500  @ $0.115 CAD

Latin Resources: £2400  @ $0.019 AUD

Red Mountain Mining: £1000  @ $0.041 AUD

Dragon Nippon Resources: £500  @ $0.10 CAD


I'm waiting on potential contracts/deals to be signed, drill results, and mines to go into production.

Planning on investing a total of £20,000. So only halfway there. Quite possibly going to wack £10,000 on one stock. Will update you all on what that is if and when I invest.

Let's see where I'm at a year from now. What's the worst that could happen? I've still got £50k in my bank and I still have a (rented) roof over my head. I need to do this investing stuff to make me rich and buy a house outright.

This can be used as a case study for people to look at for years to come. You can point any new investor to this thread and say "go to this thread, this is what happens when you are a total noob in the stock market, you lose all your money"........And that will save new investors from the doom that I am about to face.

If and when I make £20,000+  that £20,000+ is going into a stock or 2 again until I get to at least £200,000 profit. Ideally I am after £300,000+ profit before 3 years is up.


----------



## Indoril (21 March 2017)

db09striker said:


> This can be used as a case study for people to look at for years to come. You can point any new investor to this thread and say "go to this thread, this is what happens when you are a total noob in the stock market, you lose all your money"........And that will save new investors from the doom that I am about to face.




You say this like you are the first.


----------



## OmegaTrader (21 March 2017)

db09striker said:


> Just updating you on my portfolio. Again my aim: I have £70k saved and want to double my money or at least make £50k profit within a year, although it may take a bit longer as these are all long term investments.
> 
> So far I've invested £10,400:
> 
> ...




I don't believe you are telling the truth. Asx does not use pounds.


----------



## db09striker (7 April 2017)

Just wacked £8,000 on 88 Energy (88E).

Could be a 20, 30, 40+ bagger within 2 years.

Hopefully I'll be pretty much buying a house outright in 2 years time.


----------



## Cam019 (7 April 2017)

db09striker said:


> Just wacked £8,000 on 88 Energy (88E).
> 
> Could be a 20, 30, 40+ bagger within 2 years.
> 
> Hopefully I'll be pretty much buying a house outright in 2 years time.




88E trading at $0.84 - $1.68+ within the next 2 years? Interesting prediction. Is this based on any type of analysis, or just sheer guess work?


----------



## crypto (7 April 2017)

Cam019 said:


> 88E trading at $0.84 - $1.68+ within the next 2 years? Interesting prediction. Is this based on any type of analysis, or just sheer guess work?




My money is on the latter


----------



## AlwaysBeClosing (22 April 2017)

OmegaTrader said:


> I don't believe you are telling the truth. Asx does not use pounds.



Clearly that's the amount he invested in pounds, converted to AUD to make the trade.


----------



## DeepState (22 April 2017)

I suppose it is possible for the UK election to produce an outcome which results in a super severe Brexit. This would leaves the UK completely out in the cold with a structural adjustment problem.  The currency devalues precipitously as the fiscal position melts.  The government can't push rates down any further and starts monetising debt outright.  The GBP follows the Zimbabwe policy formulation. You get your profit target in GBP terms given the offshore exposures.  Even if they don't do anything particularly special in their natural currency numeraire.

Could be a 50+ bagger in a few months!


----------



## OmegaTrader (22 April 2017)

DeepState said:


> I suppose it is possible for the UK election to produce an outcome which results in a super severe Brexit. This would leaves the UK completely out in the cold with a structural adjustment problem.  The currency devalues precipitously as the fiscal position melts.  The government can't push rates down any further and starts monetising debt outright.  The GBP follows the Zimbabwe policy formulation. You get your profit target in GBP terms given the offshore exposures.  Even if they don't do anything particularly special in their natural currency numeraire.
> 
> Could be a 50+ bagger in a few months!



I could also win lotto hahah!


----------



## tech/a (22 April 2017)

OmegaTrader said:


> I could also win lotto hahah!




What you've not won lotto?


----------



## rb250660 (22 April 2017)

Bet on black two or three times in a row. Easy.


----------



## MARKETWINNER (23 April 2017)

http://www.fool.co.uk/investing/2017/03/12/multibagger-stocks-defined/

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/09/five-ways-double-investment.asp


----------



## OmegaTrader (24 April 2017)

tech/a said:


> What you've not won lotto?



Yes the lotto of life!


----------



## tech/a (24 April 2017)

Actually to odds of being born are incredible
The odds then of being you are just out of all proportion of
concept.

Yet precious few value the fluke we call life!

Odds of getting a royal flush on your first five cards: *1 in 649,740*.
Odds of becoming U.S. President: *1 in 10,000,000*.
Odds of winning $340 million jackpot in MegaMillions lottery: about *1 in 175,000,000*.
Odds of your being born in this particular time, place and circumstance: about *1 in 400,000,000,000* **


----------



## howardbandy (25 April 2017)

tech/a said:


> Actually to odds of being born are incredible
> The odds then of being you are just out of all proportion of
> concept.
> 
> ...



Odds computations, such as poker hands and megamillions, can be computed easily because the conditions under which the alternatives are chose can be defined.  Both of these are "random" -- the requirement is that the events are independent and identically distributed (iid) throughout the experiment.

In one of the US versions of megamillions, there are about 175 * 10**6 unique combinations of the six numbers.  The odds of selecting the single winning combination in advance of the drawing are correctly 1 in 175,000,000.  The amount won depends on the total number of tickets sold and the frictional costs along the way -- amount retained by the sponsor, amount paid in taxes, lost opportunity due to standing in line, etc.  Say, for discussion, that there were 175,000,000 $1 tickets sold and there were no frictional losses.  The winner wins $175,000,000 for a $1 bet.  If a bettor could buy 175,000,000 individual tickets, each with a unique combination, covering all possible combinations exactly once, and no one else bought any tickets, the bettor would have paid $175,000,000 to buy the tickets and would receive $175,000,00 for winning.  The expectation is 1.00 -- a $1.00 bet returns $1.00.  On average.  And this works because the bettor bought the entire distribution.  If he or she buys a single ticket, and other people buy the other 174,999,999 tickets, the expectation (average return per play) is unchanged -- 1.00.  The kicker is that the distribution of returns is extremely unbalanced.  There is one winner of $175,000,000 and 174,999,999 winners of $0.00.  The distribution is discrete (not continuous) and consists of two bins -- one containing a single data point that has a value of $175,000,000, the other containing 174,999,999 data points, each with a value of 0.00.  Together -- on arithmetic average -- the expectation is 1.00.  The correct calculation requires that the gambler first choose a bin, then a prize within that bin.  For this experiment, the median is a much better measure of the "central tendency" of the distribution -- 0.00.  While it is true that "you can't win if you don't buy a ticket."  It is also true that "the difference between the amount received when you play and when you do not play is negligible -- one is 0.0000000057, the other is 0.00."   

Odds computation for any arbitrary individual person becoming US president are much more difficult.  If the computation is frequentist, and it is reasonable to assume that the distribution is stationary, and the purpose of the model is explanation, then the sample is the 45 or so presidential terms.  The universe from which that sample is drawn is heavily biased toward being male, middle aged, of European ancestry, university educated.  In addition, the distribution is restricted to include only those people who have climbed high enough on the political ladder to be acceptable to their party.  Even from that, individual candidates are not independent and identically distributed.  Adams father and son, Bush father and son, Roosevelt cousins, early presidents belonged to narrowly defined cliques, etc.

Odds of me, or you, or a "universal" person being born in this particular time -- leaving spiritual considerations aside.  If each potentially born person has a unique identifier within the distribution of yet-to-be-born people, then the argument quickly becomes spiritual and is well beyond my area of expertise.  If newborns are essentially interchangeable (independent and identically distributed), then the calculation is a time series where population is noted at each measurement interval -- say once per year.  Population at time t+1 depends on two values -- the population at time t; and the net (births minus deaths) growth rate.  There are about 7,500,000,000 people on earth now.  Growth of human population, averaged over all subdistributions, is about 1.1 percent per year.  The human population will be approximately 82,000,000 greater next year.  Estimates of the total number of humans who have ever lived on earth are about 100,000,000,000.  Estimates of the age of the earth are about 4,500,000,000 years.  The land area of the earth consists of about 50,000,000 square miles.  So, if a place is any square mile, and a time is any year the earth existed, and a person is any of the (interchangeable) people who have ever lived -- all far from iid -- then the odds of any of the ever-have-lived person being born in a specific place at a specific time is 100*10**9 / (4.5*10**9 * 5*10**7).  Which is about 1 in 4.4*10**-7 -- say 1 in 10,000,000.

This is not to say that probabilities rule everything and that we should not enjoy, in the broadest definition, our lives.  Tech/a is giving us good advice.

Best,  Howard


----------



## willoneau (9 February 2018)

Just read thread and am wondering what happened to db09striker or if he is still around or started learning anything about trading?


----------



## skyQuake (9 February 2018)

At a glance, 40% portfolio drawdown. 
Now if only he bought some cryptos instead of following newsletter spruikers...


----------



## Wysiwyg (9 February 2018)

Doubling, tripling $100 has many people able to do. Increase that start amount to 10k and the number of people able to double / triple that amount drop off significantly. 100k fewer again. I think it has to do with increased mental/emotional attachment to the money and volumes traded. Understanding risk may help but the decision making process changes ... somehow.


----------



## willoneau (9 February 2018)

I found understanding risk and managing it has stopped me losing money, just need to improve my win/loss ratio


----------



## Wysiwyg (9 February 2018)

willoneau said:


> I found understanding risk and managing it has stopped me losing money, just need to improve my win/loss ratio



Or increase the amount you profit to the amount you lose. Been proven countless times that 40% win/60% loss is an overall win with trend trading. Swing trading may need a higher win rate.


----------



## PinguPingu (10 February 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> Doubling, tripling $100 has many people able to do. Increase that start amount to 10k and the number of people able to double / triple that amount drop off significantly. 100k fewer again. I think it has to do with increased mental/emotional attachment to the money and volumes traded. Understanding risk may help but the decision making process changes ... somehow.




As someone who is still working full time, and probably around the average income earner, this is something that really catches you off-guard. Its easy when your trading funds are at or below your wage, but when you've compounded it much higher and the swings are something like half your income for the year, you really need to focus on % rather than $ terms or you will psyche yourself out. I'm still struggling at the mental game here, especially when friends and family ask how you're going or friends are comparing how much they've saved/earned etc.


----------



## Aussieper (24 July 2018)

Newbie + Speculative: Man, this is for super hero like superman, spiderman, ironman, not for people like us.


----------

