With a quick and rough estimate, there are half of ETers who cannot solve the above two quiz, if correct. That is why stock market is running for the last 400 years (from opening in Netherland) and furthermore, probably suckers in the next future 400 years too. Any personal comments or objection with different view are welcomed.
Laymen terms 100 +300% = 400$ + 300% 1600$ - original 100$ = 1500%. 1% per trading day compounded is almost 800% per year. In options if you started with 1000.00 hit 3 3baggers in a row compounded.New balance would be 64000.00$. Return would be 6300% in 3 trades. It's all about compounding. I call it part of account structure. Keep in mind though compounding can work against you. For instance if you risked 5% per trade and compounded each trade. Lets say you get 1 right and 1 wrong with an equal Risk/Reward. Starting at 100$ + 5% = 105$ - 5% = 99.75. Net loss of a quarter% with 1 trade right 1 wrong with the same R/R compounding each trade. The larger percentage at risk per trade the more the net loss. I adjust my stop to allow break even with 1 loss 1 win by setting a Take profit at 5% of account balance and stop at 4.7% in this case. 100 + 5% = 105% -4.7% = 100.065. This allows for a win ratio above 50% to actually be net profitable excluding commissions.
If SuperTrader did the annually 800% logic successfully, his 10K is now (10^10)*10K for the last 10 years, by (1+9)^10 = 1e+010. Therefore I am sure that Super could NOT do it for the last 10 years, or he cannot save 10K by his poor income 10 years ago. How someone else can do what Super cannot do? Under the presence of the logic, Super is supposed to be more rich than Buffet and Gates combined now.
These compounding quizzes and calculators are kind of useless in the real world. Sure, it's fun and cute to know and punch in random numbers -- but it's more of a novelty thought...the real world is so much more different....some variables that can't be accounted for.
There should be plenty of someone like Lawrence. If every trader is as efficient to think about compounding, then probably not much liquidity in volume as now. Furthermore, since there were plenty of suckers in the last 400 years, I can say there will be similar situation, in the next 400 years. More than 90% of the individual traders eventually lose in the long run, as Berkeley business Professor says in his paper https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/. Don't go away, keep on trading lifetime.
I never stated anything about what I can or cannot do. Simply was giving an example. Just like you did. Hypocrite! Thus the reason I don't waste my time here. You want to talk probabilities the odds of you being anywhere remotely successful the way you trolled my post are slim to none.
We agree that more than half are suckers, as it should exist and as were. I mean the above link says more than 90% are suckers too, unbelievably. They know the link to admit that 90% or more will be suckers eventually. If someone says "Over the 10 or 20 years I beat the market consistently", then he is among the 5 percent, in the link, who can claim non-sucker. For the original OP issue related to compounding, more than half who cannot solve the two quiz, are suckers definitely.
One of main reasons, why 95% traders are losers is cos they jump into live trading when they don't have skills ...it's like driving a car when they don't even know how to drive and have no knowledge of road rules ... they are just very impatient to wait until they become a good trader. So that's whey they quickly lose money. By the way where are you from?