@Croesus_BTC A deleveraging scenarios could push MSTR to mNAV<1 and still be accretive to sell ATM and buy STRC. The BTC stack can remain untouched but I wonder if there is a better way to stabilize the bond market long term. Yield is proportional to BTC vol, so just a new paradigm for bonds?
@TedHZhang TSLA is my short target for expressing SPCX IPO fade - likely to have bearish correlation:
1. Elon dilution as capital split between 2 pies
2. Merger potential makes it a liquid proxy to short with less risk vs tight float IPO
Tightening weekly range, bear break sets monthly LH
@TheShortBear Not aware if p2p parlays exist but sportsbooks dampen the parlay multiplier on codependent bets and don’t allow some combos. If one outcome implies another is more likely, it won’t give you the exact a*b. So in polymarket or elsewhere, counterparty would throttle the odds
@Kinfo He’s a great trader who’s been grinding for years. A very giving selfless person, has mentored me and many others for no cost. I’ve watched him live trade and seen his account screen and execs. This was just a matter of time the way he works and studies. Proud to see this! 🙌
@TheOneLanceB@TheShortBear If we invert the idea to argue “zero bound” concept as an anti-martingale strategy it can help define the difference:
- Size should increase with opportunity not with loss
- Adding as expected value improves vs fixed edge at a casino or decreasing EV fighting an unbounded trend
The global stock market is breaking out to the upside after a 3.5-year consolidation phase.
We are seeing most central banks and economies shifting toward easing policies, while AI is introducing a new wave of technological innovation.
When it comes to the ideal setup for a bubble to form, conditions rarely align more perfectly.
Short- to medium-term risks such as tariffs, higher interest rates, geopolitical conflicts, and similar disruptions may create bouts of volatility. Yet, it’s easy to lose perspective and forget to zoom out, focusing instead on broader, long-term drivers like liquidity cycles and technological breakthroughs.
Of course, nothing is guaranteed.
The COVID era distorted how we perceive bubbles, with liquidity-driven rallies fueled by unprecedented monetary stimulus.
We have yet to see the next true technology-led speculative bubble similar to the dotcom era. AI remains the most likely catalyst for that kind of market environment to materialize again in the future.
@fannitrades Nice accountability posting! Just a little tip that you can set a break even $ amount in Tradezella settings. I use around 10% of my avg win for this which helps zero out the break even trades from diluting the statistics; wins, losses and breakeven each individually meaningful
@TheOneLanceB - on intraday, given larger multiple TF extension: a break of prior bar low on 10m could be signalled by 2m exhaustion and break of 2m prior bar low. So change on 2m trend could cascade to 10m/30m-4h/daily
Edge is one thing, execution strategy is another.
While I’m not advocating for massive complexity, I do believe oversimplification is one of the simplest means to measure “mediocrity”.
I put that in quotes because it’s relative to the individual. You shouldn’t feel less than if you simply are at the stage of your journey where your execution strategy has to exist as it does.
It becomes a red flag, of sorts, when the traders become much more advanced however.
The reason is because they are inevitably leaving potential on the table, this is the alchemy involved with comfort.
Put simply, one should strive towards more difficult execution strategy in the long-term in order to maximize returns as a trader.
Very often I see simple mistakes like avoiding loss at all costs, when the result net of a loss could be 2-4x and, more often lately… egregious numbers like 5-10x.
On the winning side it might be trader A captures .25 to 1R on a trade that trader B extracts 3-6R, same edge yet wildly different outcomes.
This would come down to tactics like how one scales a trade with progressive exposure, de-escalation or how one manages stops losses.
Unfortunately traders, understandably, revere each other based on pure dollar output and hardly reflect or insist that risk was ever a consideration.
Optically bigger = better, while some harsh realities remain obscured by pure spectacle.
My personal opinion is that if it seems too simple and easy to execute then it warrants more scrutiny from the observer.
There are strategies that have made millions and lost millions all the same which have banked on pure luck, through multiple margin calls scares and reckless behavior gone unpunished.
Likewise there are strategies that could have made millions and have made far less than that in order to satisfy level one comforts by pacifying oneself into a win-at-all-costs mentality, despite the inverted risk/reward relationship.
Just my opinion but risking $1,000 to make $5,000 on a trade is far more impressive than making $100,000 by risking a $500,000.
Pure outcomes aside, option one’s style need only escalate risk with a positive expectancy and option two risks ruin over a large enough sample size.
The art-form, to me, is how one balances all of it… the risk, the execution, the intentionality.
In the kindest way possible, I hope every trader experiences the market’s deep humbling. I hope that every trader is exposed to their worst flaws so that they will give the game the respect it deserves.
Trading isn’t easy, you making it “easy” might very well come at a devastating cost, food for thought.
Powerful is the man who is intentional with their capability. Extreme traits like sensitivity and anxiety fuel high performers but also those who can't get out of their own way. Harness your kryptonite for good