So if I understand it
First you must be right.
Second you must be right while others are wrong (or no-one will take the other side).
Third you must believe enough to bet big.
Fourth you must bet big.
Fifth, you must have been right at step one.
First you must be right.
Second you must be right while others are wrong (or no-one will take the other side).
Third you must believe enough to bet big.
Fourth you must bet big.
Fifth, you must have been right at step one.
As you grow older and observe the world from your suburban mansion, you grow increasingly irate that people didn't listen to you. You made your own fortune, but so many people just ask for handouts nowadays. Time to get involved. If you donate enough money to the other rich guy who is running for office, he'll make you ambassador to Italy, at least...
I wonder why these successful people don't pick people and pay them to do a strategy. It can be a win-win. I know why they don't - deep down they know that luck was a major factor.
( I'm aware of one such situation - I think it was called called the turtle trading or something, that was done in the 80s)
"Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" - John Maynard Keynes
Even if you are correct about the direction and magnitude of price movement, if you are wrong about how long it will take you can lose money. This is true for both short and long positions.
First you have to be smart, an IQ of less than 100 won't do
Second you have to pick the right product/service.
Third you have to persevere long enough. One cannot give up too soon, But persevering too much would be a case of sunken case fallacy.
Forth you have to time your product/service. Too early or too late, it will affect your parents.
etc...
Big blunder. Killing every profitable trade. You have to account for the fact that loosing hurts comparatively more than winning. Keyword is "log optimal".
Yes I get it - but take the example on the page - 60% chance of a win and get back same bet size, I guess most people would be reluctant to bet 1/5 of their bankroll each time.
Esp if you are not sure about the 60%.
I think most people would see 1/5 as betting big. Is what I am saying.
If you see it as betting small, maybe I would like to understand
This is not what TFA says at all. Especially this one:
> Fourth you must bet big.
is explicitly listed as a common mistake all the involved students exhibited.
No. You must bet right - and it depends on how right you are. Look up the Kelly criterion. Bet 1 - 2*probablity of losing of your current pot - will maximize expected return (but is a bit volatile for some tastes)