HODL'ers BTFO

the fear mongering is in full effect, time to buy

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

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

> nobody says OP can't inb4

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

OP use the updated version to avoid retards like this

Attached: dddddddddddsaa.png (1011x795, 44K)

just bought for profit..feels good

You wish, OP.

Attached: 1519907511635.png (780x449, 161K)

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

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

this

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

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

Attached: lol.jpg (795x444, 166K)

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

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

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

Fixed that one for you OP

Attached: 1522359289198.jpg (1011x795, 113K)

smart people learn things worth learning, like TA

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

>he didn’t buy COSS in late March

Attached: BA6915F5-508A-4236-9E7F-930213C2D638.jpg (1874x1101, 555K)

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

>he didn’t buy COSS literally RIGHT NOW

Attached: A40B7E5C-DBAD-48F0-B7F6-5F5AB76F38C0.jpg (1334x750, 126K)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attached: asdasdasd.png (1452x341, 13K)

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

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

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

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

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

this

daytrading is a meme

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

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

lmao feeling crunchy now hahaha

Lurk before you post newfag

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

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

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

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

>being happy with 100iq
never gonna make it user

Attached: einsteinianintelligence.png (677x289, 60K)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

t. mommy pays all bills

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

The feels

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

Attached: 92d.jpg (211x239, 5K)

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

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

>They would have to literally shut down the internet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attached: 1433477724321.png (912x905, 1.23M)

*descrete.

Im a semi hodler but not just out of choice.

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

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

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

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

bought at 80$ kiddo

Attached: 1451808595511.jpg (1111x597, 379K)

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

More like this.

Attached: 1513230067290.png (800x1200, 201K)

I am pic on the left.

Attached: 1492204342524.gif (200x200, 2.82M)

see

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

Your 2015 is showing

Attached: 1517577518219.jpg (600x600, 125K)

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

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

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

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

underrated post

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

How said anything about calculating it?

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

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

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

Attached: BC5EC5DF-C08A-42F8-83B0-9796DDF3742E.jpg (634x794, 129K)

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

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

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

Attached: Infrared_dog.jpg (416x212, 37K)

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

>satoshibox.com/spaj428d47mn3cr5k7pcsucx

Is this legit?