Quote from: fillippone on Today at 01:52:15 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 04:31:51 AM

Quote from: fillippone on December 16, 2023, 06:43:30 PM

I'm wondering also if you want to keep all this in the WO or if you want to move it to your specific thread.

That is probably a good idea, because it does kind of relate to the sustainable withdrawal idea.. but more of a price-based angle, as compared to my motivation of that that other thread was a monthly withdrawal limit.. which kind of becomes a time-based system that also just withdraws every month but also takes into account of the location of the spot price in relation to the 200-week moving average.. whereas this one is more of a pure price based approach... maybe I can put this chart into that thread since it is kind of related, and maye it wouldn't confuse people too much if I provide a bit of a descriptor regarding how it relates and how it differs..

I updated the spreadsheet, but still I am somewhat confused by not being able to exactly replicate the number you get in your own sheet.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zxMAwt2yHg9Nr7VMgo0zJe6igc8ZdYRpxfCWEr_Ds6w/edit?usp=sharing

Let's continue to the conversation here.

I have essentially updated my Opening Posts of this thread, and our above conversation is dealing with my newly created Opening post 3.

Of course, yours is linked in GoogleSpreadsheets above, and here is what my latest looks like:

After I made my revisions and you made your revisions, it is appearing as if all of our numbers are matching except for your column A is not matching my corresponding column X, and it appears to me that we are likely using different reinvestment success formulas. My original formula is overly simplified, and I was just taking the average of all three of the reinvestment success probability projections and I used that average number of 41.67%..

So I decided to do a little experiment, and I changed the formula that I used to calculate to use the actual raw reinvest success percentages of 70%, 40% and 15% for each of the reinvestment increments, and then my numbers for my column X are much closer to your column A values.

See this:

My numbers are not exactly the same as yours, but they are a lot closer in this version.

This whole idea could be getting into the weeds details a bit much, even though we should probably try to figure out if there might be an easier way of attempting to depict the probabilities in order to attempt to depict realistic values.

If we end up going with giving the raw weight of the probability of success to each of the reinvestment increments 70%, 40% and 15% in this example, then the average of 41.67% would no longer be necessary to show because then the average would not be used to calculate the values of your column A and my corresponding column X.

It does seem more accurate to use each of the increments rather than the average, so I am o.k going with that, if that might be what might resolve the differences in our numbers.