If you divest when it's up a few k, and invest when it's down a few k, you will have higher returns than the average and make up your loss. This because when it is up a few k there are more investors and less to earn, whereas when it is down a few k there are less investors and hence more returns on your capital. Basically do the inverse of what the greedy/scared investor does.
That's illogical.
When the site is down, and there are fewer investors, you get higher returns
and losses.
Sure losses are higher too when there is less invested capital and you have a higher percentage of bankroll.
But since on average house edge makes 1%, it makes on average profit.
And when house has made a loss, I think the turnover of gambling goes mostly up due to gamblers getting courageous, while the amount of investors goes mostly down due to them getting scared, so an investment gets more bang for it's buck so to speak. You get a larger % of the bankroll and there is more turnover on it. So on average you make more money then.
I'm not talking about the investor's fallacy, indeed chances for house to go up or down are the same when house is in profit or at loss.
Am I making sense or does it look still illogical to you?