He’s advising you to not take tail risk because the longer you’re exposed to such risk, the likelier it is to materialize and ruin you. You see? This is a statistical fact. Denying it would be signaling arrogance. I’ve also made trades that have netted me hundreds of thousands but I was very lucky. I was taking on massive tail risk and survived. Looking back to that time, I was foolish, not skilled nor intelligent. It’s ironic you say this. Let’s leave everything on a agree to disagree/good note and just move on...
Stop loss doesn’t guarantee that you will sell at that specific price but that it will turn into a market order once it hits that price. Stop loss shouldn’t be categorized as a defined risk tool. I covered this more in the thread. If you’re going through it, you’ll run into it.
So... if theoretically a stop loss could be categorized as a defined risk tool (for argument sake), your whole argument would fall to pieces ?
that is sensible it all boils down to what risk you want to take.......yes it may be more than Taleb may take .....or what Soros may teke
No. Defining risk in a trading strategy is one piece of the puzzle. Edit: kindly, this also needs a little more context. This thread has diverged into multiple arguments so I don’t know which argument you’re talking about. If you can clarify which argument it is, I can further clarify my comment.
Taleb et al will be the first to tell you to take all the risks you want to take but to make sure you show up tomorrow. (Implying take all the risks but tail risks... so you can survive to then show up tomorrow).
definition of gambler:If you describe someone as a gambler, you mean that they are ready to take risks in order to gain advantages or success. Taleb says do not take tail risk he does not say take no risk at all.