4 ms·
I, too, would like a bot that generated 213% annualized compound returns.
by firebones 8y ago
I, too, would like a bot that generated 213% annualized compound returns.
- anoncoward111 8y agoIt's sustainable with small numbers. That is to say, 213% gains from trading $2000 on JNUG/JDST is a lot more feasible than 213% gains on $75,000,000 USD worth of AMZN calls
- beatgammit 8y agoWhy do you say that? Yes, $75M poses liquidity issues, but that doesn't mean that a smaller amount is easier. I'd wager that a smaller portfolio is harder because you can't diversify to mitigate your risk.
- anoncoward111 8y agoIt's really hard to find 75m worth of buyers. You can't buy and sell as freely as you please, like you said, because of liquidity. I can buy JDST at 9am for $60 and sell at 9:45am for $60.60. On a balance of $2000, this is an easy $20 for basically no risk, imo.
- firebones 8y agoThat's pretty cool that it never goes down and you don't ever buy at $60 and sell at $59.40.
- anoncoward111 8y agoAgree, if you are buying only on days where RSI is extremely low (below 30) then you can be much more confident you won't sell at a loss compared to buying when RSI is above 50
- firebones 8y agoAgree that it is far more likely to do that with small numbers rather than big numbers. But that is something entirely different than finding a sustainable scheme giving 10% per month returns. Sustainable should mean that 500 readers of HN each individually managing their little $2000 nest egg ($1 million aggregate) making independent decisions should be able to collectively be sitting on $3.13 million after a year. You don't get sustainable 213% returns without a commensurate, sustainable level of risk to go with it. But if you're able to do it sustainably with 3x ETFs, congratulations.