I agree with that, so I agree that there can be systematic ways to employ 100% betting, and that is why I posted in the first place to attempt to get some specifics regarding what the guy's plan was or is.
Again not much more different than any other system bassed on percentage of allocated funds to be in/out and hedge.
I agree that there are ways that seemingly different systems could be employed in ways to achieve similar results.
I don't want to break a record on the longest reply or something but also I don't like to leave a message without reply, so I won't go into a detailed quote.
Fair enough. Sometimes these kinds of back and forth responses can become a bit unwieldy.
What I was trying to say is that if you have never lowered from a 85% IN bitcoin, that is some bet you have on longterm upwards movement.
Whatever you do with your 5-10-15% of trading stash is something else. You say that makes a big difference, I say it isn't that much of a difference. We can agree on that disagreement.
If you were doing what you do, with a BIGGER percentage of trading/hedging funds I would say the difference is bigger. In fact, if you are getting a considerable better benchmark on the trading of that 10%... maybe you should increase that percentage to make the difference (and the profits) bigger.
Maybe what I am saying (or trying to say), if I have not already said it, is that the whole framework is different when someone approaches the matter from a 100% trading perspective - versus my consideration of my perspective is like a largely accumulate and hold position with some systematic trading that merely offsets some of the extremes of the volatility. I am not really striving to get rich in a kind of way that doubles my BTC holdings or anything like that because I am not inclined towards trading risks. Therefore, I only trade smaller amounts, and even though my strategy has been decently successful, I feel NO real desire to double or triple down on it. So, yeah, my ongoing bet is on up.. and I am investing for up... and continued up and assumed up... Yet, on the other hand, I am not really afraid to bet a little more on down if I am quite convinced that we have topped out.. and in this cycle, if the price were to shoot up to $5,000 in less than 3 months, for example, I would likely consider that prices are a bit "topped out" and cash out a bit on the gamble that prices are going to correct to some degree.
You are right in that I don't know what that guy system is or if he has system at all. I was just trying to give some example in how being 100% in/out can be done following some kind of system, not trying to guess if that was exactly what he was/will be doing.
In the end, we are all sorta gambling. Remember martingale betting is also a "system" no matter what the long term consecuences it probabilistically have.
I don't necessarily claim that my system is fool proof, and I doubt that my system is even as close to as systematic as Martingale betting - and possibly even the odds of martingale betting are better than my odds - in the long run. So, I am not really arguing that my system has fool proof odds. I am merely asserting that there is a considerable amount of difference between systems, and anyone who is betting 100% balls to the walls is playing a quite different system than I am playing - and it seems quite ridiculous to me to attempt to argue a minimization of the difference and to assert that alls systems are all the same (or nearly the same).