Bitcoin Traders Claim There’s Method to Their Madness

Post by blunte » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 11:23 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #13

blunte wrote: post #10

As they say, past performance is no indication of future potential. This is especially true the shorter the trader's history. Thus, reading one trader's secret of success may as well be like listening to a slot machine player's 3-week winning strategy story. Meanwhile, identifying recurring inefficiencies and working out the details of how to take advantage of those inefficiencies can produce a more reliable income.…

> I have my own crypto strategy, and it's about as simple as surfing. Each new wave (no pun intended, if you know what I mean ;) ) may grow and give you something to ride. All the way to the scene of the crash.

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 11:36 PM UTC

Post by rspeer » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 11:39 PM UTC

hxta98596 wrote: post #52

Zenbit_UX wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While he may have been exaggerating, I doubt it. These numbers are crazy for stocks but entirely reasonable in the crypto game. His math can be explained but a common misconception when buying coins: Whales move the market. It's impossible to place a six-figure order and get them all for the same price. Simply placing an order that larger disrupts supply and demand enough that multiple sellers are required to cover,…

No. The price never reached a 570% gain so your "most likely" is impossible. The error in the article confusing percentage and multiples is one of a common math errors and the most likely explanation. 382 is 5.7x the price paid or (382/67). That's not 570%. It's 470%. The most likely explanation is the majority of bloomberg reports know almost nothing about finance or math. Unfortunately and sadly it's still some of…

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 11:42 PM UTC

rspeer wrote: post #55

hxta98596 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The price never reached a 570% gain so your "most likely" is impossible. The error in the article confusing percentage and multiples is one of a common math errors and the most likely explanation. 382 is 5.7x the price paid or (382/67). That's not 570%. It's 470%. The most likely explanation is the majority of bloomberg reports know almost nothing about finance or math. Unfortunately and sadly it's still some of…

When they lose 75% of the money they invested in Bitcoin, they can keep doing the same math and be happy about their "25% gain".

Post by ForHackernews » Sat, Dec 23, 2017, 12:03 AM UTC

Zenbit_UX wrote: post #50

ErikAugust wrote: post #8

A good look into trader psych is Taleb's "Fooled by Randomness". All of this predates Bitcoin, though I'd argue the open nature of cryptocurrency allows for people with "extraordinarily active imaginations" (let's say) to participate.

There was a story on the top of HN recently about an Asian student who came to live in the US and joined a hedge fund out of uni. He successfully predicted a huge windfall for his fund - but for entirely the wrong reasons. He put a lot of effort and research into his analysis of the market and was sure he understood it well enough to bet big. He failed but luck saved him and made a killing. His boss told him not to t…