# What is an EDGE in trading?



## tech/a (15 March 2010)

> We always rely on research when making trading decisions. The research has indictated that volume has little to do with price. However, strong up days combined with high volume-- specifically largest up day in 10 days combined with largest volume the returns over the next day were up .25%, next week up .60% and next month up 1.45%. This was* the only edge* the research discovered in using volume




I often here and see statements like this.
What is an edge?
Is it seen as better than 50% success rate.(You dont need + 50% to profit).

My own definition is Longterm Income > Longterm expenditure.
How you derive/achieve that is entirely up to the individual.
I believe this applies to any Wealth Creation Endeavor (Business/Property/Trading).


----------



## wayneL (15 March 2010)

*Re: What is an EDGE in trading.*

My definition of an edge is a defined "mathematical or statistical advantage", however obtained.

I suppose an ancillary question is "an edge over what?". What is the benchmark? The index? Break-even? The average crappy mutual fund?

<pedantic>BTW it's "hear"</pedantic>


----------



## tech/a (15 March 2010)

*Re: What is an EDGE in trading.*



wayneL said:


> My definition of an edge is a defined "mathematical or statistical advantage", however obtained.
> 
> I suppose an ancillary question is "an edge over what?". What is the benchmark? The index? Break-even? The average crappy mutual fund?
> 
> <pedantic>BTW it's "hear"</pedantic>




Excellent
Encompasses more.



> <pedantic>BTW it's "hear"</pedantic>




yeh sory!!!


----------



## Mistagear (15 March 2010)

Hi,

I am in the business of selling Secondhand Goods !!!!

Each day I go to the marketplace where I sell my goods to the retail public
Each day I look to buy more goods at wholesale prices, to later re-sell to the public.

I specialize in selling particular products that, over the years, I have found to be readily saleable, and sometimes easily procurable on the wholesale market.
Some of my inventory I place considerable mark-up on when I think there may be buyers willing to pay considerably more than I did, this usually means I must keep the items for some time in order to achieve my desired price.

Other items, however, I have only small mark-ups and I attempt to turn these items over quickly.

My EDGE, if I possess one, is my ability to recognize a saleable item amongst a myriad of goods available to re-sell.

If you would like to purchase any or all of my goods for sale,

My business sells Equities, Futures and occasionally Currencies.

 I occupy a small stall in one corner of the ASX market, and also have another business outlet located at the CBOT (business hrs are inconsistent due to my sometimes uncontrolled need for sleep) 

Cheers, M


----------



## Whiskers (15 March 2010)

What is an EDGE in trading?

Being or getting in the 'know'... eg bludy *Insider* trading! 

But as they say, don't get mad, get even.

That's why I'm focusing more on the psychology of the market in general and individual directors, politicans etc who have the power to move the markets. 

A lot can be learned about a person by their history, appearance, gestures, language and grammar etc without actually meeting them.


----------



## cutz (15 March 2010)

My idea of what a good edge is,

Buy below theoretical value, sell above, dynamic hedge, all on zero commission.

It would be a nice gig if you can get it.


----------



## brty (15 March 2010)

An edge is some type of advantage over other players. 

For small traders, typical of many here, a clear edge is small trading size (on stocks). These people are able to enter and exit positions with relatively little slippage. 

A large trader for some type of fund will have to work a position to either enter or exit a trade, thus having greater slippage.

brty


----------



## edho11 (17 March 2010)

Your edge is what you use to your advantage in the market to make money.
So an edge can be a trading idea, a trading system, the fundamentals of a company or insider information (don't break the law!!).

So to be technical about it, an edge is the statistical outcome of a given payout.

For example, if you were a technical analyst, you would see a chart and say to yourself for your edge, "Price is sitting at a major support area, RSI is oversold, price is touching the 200 moving average, the other stocks in the sector is already moving up, there is bearish divergence in my other indicators. So the chance of price moving up from here is pretty high. So buy now."

So basically what you would rate your chance of buying/selling in the right direction.


----------



## yonnie (19 March 2010)

you have an edge in trading if you make money consistently


----------



## $20shoes (19 March 2010)

An Edge is completing this 55 second commsec course.


----------



## pixel (19 March 2010)

Mistagear said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am in the business of selling Secondhand Goods !!!!
> 
> ...




Brilliantly put, Mista 

... and if you manage to sell your marked-up goods to a stall holder near you, because he reckons he's got to "average down", then you certainly have the edge over him :bekloppt:


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 May 2014)

edho11 said:


> Your edge is what you use to your advantage in the market to make money.
> So an edge can be a trading idea, a trading system, the fundamentals of a company or insider information (don't break the law!!).



So the above is what an edge *can* be. 

How about in trading it is the practical application of a theory that over-time increases an account equity.


----------



## luutzu (20 May 2014)

tech/a said:


> I often here and see statements like this.
> What is an edge?
> Is it seen as better than 50% success rate.(You dont need + 50% to profit).
> 
> ...




An edge is having more money than the other guy 

An edge is to know that there are Known knowns, there are Known Unknowns, Unknown Knowns, and possibly Unknown Unknowns... and then just go ahead anyway [got to love that Rumsfeld].

---
Seriously though, I agree with you. 

What is investing but an endeavour where you put money and effort out hoping that it will return enough to compensate your time, efforts and opportunity costs.

So an edge is whatever it is that can, over the long term, consistently, reasonably give you that.

And in trading stocks, it's brilliant to be able, on average, to buy something lower and selling it higher... if an investor can do that, it doesn't really matter what method or tools or approach is used, it works and he know what he's doing.

For people like me though, I don't use Chartings or Technical Analysis because I know I will never gain an edge and know enough about the factors and the people with whom I'll be trading with for me to make reasonably dependable profits from these charts.

That if, say, I know that based on this and that factor, these and that group of people will pay $5.50 for asset A... and if i can buy it at much lower than $5.50, i'll buy it and flick it over for $5.50 and make a profit. I wouldn't care if A is a thing worth $5.50 or 50cents... I wouldn't even care if it's a thing at all.

Since I won't be able to predict what others will pay for A or B or C... I'll play it safe and try to value what A and B and C will be worth, economically... and just to be a bit safer, I'll only buy it at below that value... and to make me sleep better, I'll require enough room below my valuation so that if I need to get out, i can get out and still leave something behind for the next guy.

Yes, I read all these from Graham and Buffett etc. but it's what a business person ought to do, in any business I think. That you have to assume your customers are also smart, that they know if what they're paying for will add value to them... that for your business to be around a while, you can't just profit yourself and not profit your customers... 

And there is no way, at least for me, to know how much value my sales add if I do not know the value of what i'm selling.

In the stock market, traders get a better shot because the market is bigger, with new customers always coming through, and they do make mistakes sometimes. But that game is only for very very smart people with a lot of resources and some luck.


----------



## CanOz (21 May 2014)

An edge is simply whatever gives you an advantage over your competitors in the market that allows you to win trades better than 50% of the time. If its less than this, then to me, the edge must be only in the money management.


----------



## John Swift (21 May 2014)

CanOz said:


> An edge is simply whatever gives you an advantage over your competitors in the market that allows you to win trades better than 50% of the time. If its less than this, then to me, the edge must be only in the money management.




I run a system that has net positive expectancy, but a winning trade percentage of just under 40%... does this classify as money management? It's only that the winning trades make, on average, 2x more than the system's losing trades lose. It only needs to make 1.5x in order to make the system profitable... AKA... giving me an edge.


----------



## CanOz (21 May 2014)

John Swift said:


> I run a system that has net positive expectancy, but a winning trade percentage of just under 40%... does this classify as money management? It's only that the winning trades make, on average, 2x more than the system's losing trades lose. It only needs to make 1.5x in order to make the system profitable... AKA... giving me an edge.




Great question John and it could be debated all day long. To me, it is my belief is that if your system or method can make money at 1:1 R/R then it has a technical edge. If it relies on greater R/R then its a money management edge. Their must be no question it is some kind of an edge or it would not make money. But its where the edge comes from that just different.

For example, say that when my favorite index future opens i notice something that happens once in a while, is see large orders in the depth at a certain level. I take a position that has typically rewarded me greater than 50% of the time. When it does reward it rewards me on average better than 1:1. To me this has some kind of technical edge, there is something happening that results in the outcome being predictable more than 50% of the time. The money management edge can only increase the reward as its leveraged up.

Someone here mentioned one time that unless your system can make money at 1:1 there is no technical edge. Thats how i always thought of it after that, not saying my minds made up, just how i see it now. I'm sure there are a ton of people here on ASF that have a better view of this than me, i'm not much for explaining stuff like this either. Sinner or RY might be able to add some perspective.

Great topic though.


----------



## systematic (21 May 2014)

The definition is simpler than what is being described by many.

The 'edge' is simply the profit (or loss) expressed as a percentage of your risk.

At a pokie machine, your edge is probably around -10%.  Meaning for all the dollars you turnover, you're _expectation***_ is to have lost 10% of that turnover.  You play $1 a spin for 1,000 spins and your expected loss is $100 for the evening.  That's 10%.  For every dollar you risk (play), you expect to lose $0.10 cents.

In a shop: 
In a month, You sell $12k of stock that you bought wholesale for $7k.  You spend $3k on running your business .  You risked $10k (if you made no sales, you lost $10k).  You make $2k profit for every $10k of risk (costs).  That's 20% edge. For every $1 you risk, you make $0.20 cents.



Calc your trading system like this:
(Average win % * Average $ per win) - Average losing % * Average $ per loss).

You have $100,000
You risk $1,000 per trade.

45% of your trades are profitable
55% of your trades are losers.

When you win, you win on average $1,500
When you lose, you lose on average $750 _(because you usually get stopped out well before your $1,000 risk is hit - though sometimes it might be more, because of a gap.  Here the average is $750)_

(0.45 * $1,500) - (0.55 * $750) = $262.50

Expressed as a percentage, your edge is $262.50 / $750 _(your average loss)_ = 35%
i.e. For every dollar you risk in the market (with this method), your edge / expectancy is $0.35



The edge, as CanOz suggests, is a function of win% and average $ wins vs. average $ losses.  It's the combination of those 2 things that calculate your expectancy.  Everyone has an expectancy, whether it's negative (a losing trader or the pokie machines example) or positive.  People refer to it as your 'edge' when they mean positive expectancy.  So we say the casino has the 'edge' because they have the positive expectancy.  But you, the player, has an expectancy too...a negative one (so most people don't call that your edge).  So, I disagree with CanOz that it has anything to do with money management.  



* Final note (from the asterisk above):  Note that we say 'expectation'.  As we know, the real world swings could be better or worse than what we calc as our edge / expectancy.  (i.e. standard deviation).  Basically, someone making thousands of trades can be more confident their results will more closely approximate their expectancy than someone who made 50 trades.  Basically.


----------



## skc (21 May 2014)

CanOz said:


> Someone here mentioned one time that unless your system can make money at 1:1 there is no technical edge. Thats how i always thought of it after that, not saying my minds made up, just how i see it now. I'm sure there are a ton of people here on ASF that have a better view of this than me, i'm not much for explaining stuff like this either. Sinner or RY might be able to add some perspective.




In the broadest term an edge is simply an advantage/superiority over the opposition. I don't have any issues if people like to think the following as an edge:

1. Using a super fast connection.
2. Wearing adult diapers so you don't need to take toliet break.
3. Waking up earlier than everyone else and place orders nearer to the front of the queues.

Obviously, some edges are more valuable than others... 

I am trying to come up with an example of a technical edge that operates <50% win rate... perhaps something like buying puts in attempt to pick tops? You will pay small premiums many time but a crash will deliver leveraged payout. 

A "technical edge" above 1:1 is by no means a necessity in terms of overall profitability. Although it is really just semantics more than anything.


----------



## VSntchr (21 May 2014)

skc said:


> *2. Wearing adult diapers so you don't need to take toliet break.*




Ahhh SKC - while your wearing those adult diapers, I'm using a chair with a hole in it.




> Obviously, some edges are more valuable than others...


----------



## craft (22 May 2014)

skc said:


> In the broadest term an edge is simply an advantage/superiority over the opposition. I don't have any issues if people like to think the following as an edge:
> 
> 1. Using a super fast connection.
> 2. Wearing adult diapers so you don't need to take toliet break.
> ...




I don't know - I reckon no edge (where it really matters) and they're still stuffed.

Where as some Muppet getting up at lunch time and free balling it at their old hack computer can win at this game if they have an edge. 

Despite the inter-changeability that people use between positive expectancy and edge there is a big difference. Expectancy is the outcome, edge is the cause. 

Problem with of only knowing your edge in the form of outcome is faith during a drawdown.

The *cause* of all positive expectancies (ie the edge) is .<<,,h52lnlk6hp896y(&#%@%$)@(


----------



## AussieMatt (25 May 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> So the above is what an edge *can* be.
> 
> How about in trading it is the practical application of a theory that over-time increases an account equity.




I think this is the most useful definition. I would add that both the application and the theory/belief must match the traders personality/philosophy and applied each time to be a CONSISTENT edge. EG I believe when XYZ occurs there is a high probability price will get to ABC (theory), I HATE loosing money/drawdowns (personality/philosophy) so I take small losses/BE trades (application) that then go on to work out before getting my winning trades. 

If I ignore my personality when applying my -edge- then I lose that edge over time even if my -theory- has a high win rate.

The CONSISTENT PRACTICAL application of a proven THEORY.


----------



## DeepState (25 May 2014)

AussieMatt said:


> I think this is the most useful definition. I would add that both the application and the theory/belief must match the traders personality/philosophy and applied each time to be a CONSISTENT edge. EG I believe when XYZ occurs there is a high probability price will get to ABC (theory), I HATE loosing money/drawdowns (personality/philosophy) so I take small losses/BE trades (application) that then go on to work out before getting my winning trades.
> 
> If I ignore my personality when applying my -edge- then I lose that edge over time even if my -theory- has a high win rate.
> 
> The CONSISTENT PRACTICAL application of a proven THEORY.




Interesting that you have inserted the need for a proven theory into this. Whilst I like a combination of theory matching with practice/outcome to proceed, I wonder if theory is actually necessary.  I don't think it is, actually.

For example, the options market existed and functioned well before the Black-Scholes-Merton model was developed and applied.  They found prices weren't too out of whack with model predictions.  Options theory is not something you just conjour up in your head.  Yet the market figured it out in the absence of a theory.  I figure that there would have been people in that market who understood pricing better than average by instinct or experience and done very well....without knowing what the theory actually was.

Most of the great theories were developed after observation took place, often by accident (Newton's apple, penicillin...).  Theory just tried to explain it (backward induction).  When theories are developed about how things should be (forward induction), they have a much poorer track record...particularly in adaptive, highly integrated settings...like the market.

Whilst a theory which I can understand and plays out empirically is important for me, personally, I actually don't think it is necessary for an edge to be developed.  The cave man who discovered fire had no idea what it was and all of its properties...but used it to advantage anyway.


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 May 2014)

AussieMatt said:


> The CONSISTENT PRACTICAL application of a proven THEORY.



After reading RY's post I thought about use of the word theory in a trading context. I rationalised that there are no facts to any trading outcome unless one has access to information unknown to the public. In other words an outcome shall not be known in advance unless one has access to security related information which is unknown to the public. 

That is why, that I know of, there are no 100% winning traders. Not quite like fire!


----------



## DeepState (25 May 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> After reading RY's post I thought about use of the word theory in a trading context. I rationalised that there are no facts to any trading outcome unless one has access to information unknown to the public. In other words an outcome shall not be known in advance unless one has access to security related information which is unknown to the public.
> 
> That is why, that I know of, there are no 100% winning traders. Not quite like fire!




I'll bet that cave man burned his butt whilst trying to figure out the properties of fire .  

What if the fact was a probability statement? For example, there is an almost permanent imbalance in deep out of the money put options which trade expensive.  If you sold them, on average, you will make money.  Each individual option that you sell has a payoff which is not known.  Yet there is an edge and no inside information is required.  It is an edge created through strong risk aversion on the part of some market participants and hedging difficulties in fast moving markets which cause an inventory imbalance within market makers.  Your hit rate would actually be very high, but your losses will be huge relative to your gains in a reward to risk sense.  In aggregate, you have a positive expectancy.

To use those casino analogies, it's the edge the Roulette dealer gets when the payout is not truly fair.  Each spin produces an unknown outcome, but the probability of profit is positive.  ...and people play knowing these odds.  Though I realise this is not a trading environment, I hope the analogy serves as an illustration. In Roulette, the theory is absolute...but the outcome is unknown. Yet an edge clearly exists.


----------



## So_Cynical (26 May 2014)

DeepState said:


> To use those casino analogies, it's the edge the Roulette dealer gets when the payout is not truly fair.




It is what it is, an advantage is an advantage so betting against it is an exercise based in stupidity, while it can win it probably wont so its crazy to bet against it...and that's why i don't punt in casinos any more, still its all a learning experience.


----------



## AussieMatt (26 May 2014)

DeepState said:


> Interesting that you have inserted the need for a proven theory into this. Whilst I like a combination of theory matching with practice/outcome to proceed, I wonder if theory is actually necessary.  I don't think it is, actually.
> 
> For example, the options market existed and functioned well before the Black-Scholes-Merton model was developed and applied.  They found prices weren't too out of whack with model predictions.  Options theory is not something you just conjour up in your head.  Yet the market figured it out in the absence of a theory.  I figure that there would have been people in that market who understood pricing better than average by instinct or experience and done very well....without knowing what the theory actually was.
> 
> ...




Hey RY,

I took theory to mean the traders own personal theory as to why price will do what it will do, not necessarily academic theory. I actually think people over complicate trading far too much and that's the reason a lot struggle they refuse to keep it simple. Your last quote sums my thoughts exactly, you don't need to know a lot about a market to trade it just how to trade it profitably


----------



## DeepState (26 May 2014)

AussieMatt said:


> Hey RY,
> 
> I took theory to mean the traders own personal theory as to why price will do what it will do, not necessarily academic theory. I actually think people over complicate trading far too much and that's the reason a lot struggle they refuse to keep it simple. Your last quote sums my thoughts exactly, you don't need to know a lot about a market to trade it just how to trade it profitably




Yeah.  I like your perspective very much.  Personal theory is another term for 'meme' or 'ideology'.  We all have them, shaped from whatever, including book theory and personal experience and we use them and adjust them with feedback (ie. learn from experience).  

My personal viewpoint on this is that the market is a contest of beliefs and temperament.  Temperament is the ability to stay true to your beliefs under stress.  The contest of beliefs, then, can be viewed as if it were an evolutionary contest.  As the weakest gazelle tends to be eaten by the fastest lion, the weakest meme (even if loaded full of books and teachings form Nobel Laureates) has the least grip on reality and tends to get smashed by the guys with a strong understanding of how the world actually works.  At each contest, everybody learns a bit, new lions and gazelles get born who are generally sired from the most successful of their species (they don't have birth control), others perish from old age or retire young , droughts and rainfalls arrive and go etc. and, thus, the game keeps changing all the time.  Never dull.

So an edge is held by any person whose meme/ideology is better adapted to the current circumstances than most.  But they can never truly know that it is and, even if it is,  it will be unlikely that it will stay so indefinitely.

Finally, we watched a DVD of The Matrix (1999) last night, mostly because I really like the scene where Neo and Trinity lay waste to an office lobby trying to rescue Morpheus.  Although generally regarded as marginally less authoritative as a source of education for investing/trading than, say, Fama and French (1993), it helps bring in the behavioural element:

+  Morpheus: What is real?  How do you define 'real'?

Because you never really know what is real and are shrouded in uncertainty all the time, our behaviour is sometimes quite at odds with our own beliefs.  When you put that into a crowd setting where everyone affects heaps of people, you get even more mushing about and weird stuff happening.

I'll sign off with a quote from an instructional documentary called Men in Black (1997):

+ Agent K: A person is smart.  People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it!


Some relevant reading on implementing ideas in the event your meme has an edge:

http://www.oaktreecapital.com/MemoTree/Dare to Be Great II.pdf


----------



## DeepState (26 May 2014)

So_Cynical said:


> It is what it is, an advantage is an advantage so betting against it is an exercise based in stupidity, while it can win it probably wont so its crazy to bet against it...and that's why i don't punt in casinos any more, still its all a learning experience.




I still go to casinos.....but just to eat at the buffets which are so cheap because they are subsidised by the gamblers betting with negative odds (except the smart ones on BlackJack).  I regard this as buffet arbitrage.


----------



## luutzu (2 June 2014)

DeepState said:


> Yeah.  I like your perspective very much.  Personal theory is another term for 'meme' or 'ideology'.  We all have them, shaped from whatever, including book theory and personal experience and we use them and adjust them with feedback (ie. learn from experience).
> ....
> 
> So an edge is held by any person whose meme/ideology is better adapted to the current circumstances than most.  But they can never truly know that it is and, even if it is,  it will be unlikely that it will stay so indefinitely.




Don't you mean an edge is when their theory/understanding - meme/ideology - ALLOWS them to adapt, not "better adapted", to the circumstances?

In allowing people to adapt, it could mean they do not have to be involved in the current situation, they could just avoid situations that does not suit them - and so benefit by not getting into situation they don't understand.

In saying their ideas better suits the situation, then that's just obvious and it's saying it's more about luck then about their understanding and adaptability.

If not, then it's not much of a structure if it simply adapts and be with whatever situation the current environment is. But then, how could a person with certain ideology not seriously know what those are.

As Bruce Lee said, "be like water, my friend." [i think he took it from Sun Tzu but who doesn't].... And like water, even though it adapts to its surrounding, still retain, still know its nature, its ideology. 

Anyway, thought i respond because a slow gazelle is any lion's meat, not just the fastest lion


----------



## DeepState (2 June 2014)

luutzu said:


> Don't you mean an edge is when their theory/understanding - meme/ideology - ALLOWS them to adapt, not "better adapted", to the circumstances?
> 
> In allowing people to adapt, it could mean they do not have to be involved in the current situation, they could just avoid situations that does not suit them - and so benefit by not getting into situation they don't understand.
> 
> ...




Read Charles Darwin (Origin of the Species).  Then read Andrew Lo (Adaptive Markets Hypothesis). Then, if you have time on your hands, read about genetic algos in relation to artificial intelligence and optimisation.  And finally, take a look around you and see how things are.

The framework which has been proposed is misaligned, in my view.


----------



## luutzu (3 June 2014)

DeepState said:


> Read Charles Darwin (Origin of the Species).  Then read Andrew Lo (Adaptive Markets Hypothesis). Then, if you have time on your hands, read about genetic algos in relation to artificial intelligence and optimisation.  And finally, take a look around you and see how things are.
> 
> The framework which has been proposed is misaligned, in my view.




I was assigned "On the Origin of Species" - the professor said it's one of the best books ever written - still on the shelf, unread. Also did an entire course on Artificial Intelligence/Cognitive psychology... and for the life of me, don't remember what was taught there. So that's me as a student 

Still, I don't think you could apply these principles of adaptive behaviour to the market. Or even contrarian behaviours and the likes.

I stick to the principle of: No matter how loud the wind howl, the mountain will never bend to it (Chinese Emperor, Disney's Mulan). True that the grass that bend with the wind will never break (Confucius?), and probably sleeps better, and get to keep his job too, but I don't think adapting to the market and the general public opinions, or merely be contrarian to it, is what adaptation for survival ought to be, not in the stock market.

You can't outperform the market if you think and adapt and act like them... you just have to do what you think is right, and if the market think the same, cool.. .else...


----------



## DeepState (3 June 2014)

luutzu said:


> I was assigned "On the Origin of Species" - the professor said it's one of the best books ever written - still on the shelf, unread. Also did an entire course on Artificial Intelligence/Cognitive psychology... and for the life of me, don't remember what was taught there. So that's me as a student
> 
> Still, I don't think you could apply these principles of adaptive behaviour to the market. Or even contrarian behaviours and the likes.
> 
> ...




I guess we'll get to find out if your approach is well adapted to survive the current circumstances and evolve - or not.  The only animals and plants that did not evolve are...fossils...often embedded in mountains.


----------



## luutzu (3 June 2014)

DeepState said:


> I guess we'll get to find out if your approach is well adapted to survive the current circumstances and evolve - or not.  The only animals and plants that did not evolve are...fossils...often embedded in mountains.




I know i've tried to be funny and all but seriously, do you think a fit investment approach should be adaptable to the given situation?

To adapt could mean two things: to know what you are doing, know what the others are doing, and to act or not act when you see or understand the situation; The other adaptation is to follow the current trend, go along with what's generally accepted in the environment - the kind of adaptation from a biological, survival stand point.

When it comes to investing, the first adaptation is, i think, better; the second is mere survival - kinda like benchmarking against some index, or buying some blue chip because everyone else is doing it.

In application to finance, when a guy comes to you and offer $100 for X, the first approach will say... "No thanks, I reckon it's worth no more than $50, and I don't care if others will fight to get it off me for $150 next week."; The second adaptation will be: "awesome, i know a few people who will pay at least $150."

And if an approach is already successful, why would it evolve?

"To change or not to change is not important. What is important is whether it is necessary to change, whether the change will be beneficial." - Han Fei Tzu [I also got a Western Quotes for every occasions ]


----------



## DeepState (4 June 2014)

luutzu said:


> And if an approach is already successful, why would it evolve?
> 
> "To change or not to change is not important. What is important is whether it is necessary to change, whether the change will be beneficial." - Han Fei Tzu [I also got a Western Quotes for every occasions ]




You are free to think whatever you like and apply whatever approach you think is right for investment.  Why not let it roll and see which of wealth or extinction comes first.


----------



## craft (4 June 2014)

Being on the other side of Luutzu's transactions


----------



## luutzu (4 June 2014)

craft said:


> Being on the other side of Luutzu's transactions




that's a good one 

also true... I sold CBA a while back for $35 or so and it's now $71?  Sold CSL at $42 and a few years later it's $60?... Sold Coles Group two weeks before Westfarmers made the offer

Although I did get one win on some unlucky dude who bought a stock to be taken over at $1.10 for $1.105...


----------

