The point is that trading can beat buy and hold. The point is that bitcoin is difficult to value. The point is that to calculate drawdowns you use the high price. The point is that there are better ways to manage a portfolio that HODL. The point is that the only control you have is when you buy and sell. The point is that risk control keeps you in the game.
You are probably not smart enough to read ET. Or you are so biased that everything that is negative for BTC is ignored by you. I posted a short signal when we were at $60,753 last year in November. So it is possible to time the market. But you lack the knowledge to do so.
No, this is basic nonsense. You just posted the most idiotic statement on ET. That's an achievement. So if BTC goes to zero and you cannot not sell it anymore you will never have a loss? ROFLMAO. It only confirms your inability to analyze the markers correctly. You miss the basic knowledge, or even have no clue about the markets. People with almost 30K of posts on ET are posters, nothing else. They have no knowledge about trading, because in that case they would be trading. I have never seen a successful fund keep losing positions with a 70% open loss.
Not sure how easy that is with Bitcoin, when 20% drawdowns are noise and 30% is invariably just a pullback. It would be hard to avoid getting whipsawed to hell.
Peter Lynch did very well with his 10-baggers by HODLing while going through market drawdowns. Yet, the average investor in the Magellan fund did very poorly and didn't even come close to his returns. Why? Because they were too busy trying to play trader and timing the market.
With only 1 sample you can proof anything. Just take the one you want to proof at the optimal time, and take the biggest loser you can find to compare them. Each time the stock markets crash, billions are lost by people who want to keep their position no matter what. It is widely accepted that holding on in a losing position will sooner or later lead to a wipe out. I know personally two people who lost each $10 MM by refusing to take a small loss. I am sure that I beat your returns in BTC with daytrading the ES. I also showed hard proof in post #52 that I warned Baron for a big drop as my weekly went short in november last year. So I would have missed that loss if I would have a position in BTC. Baron preferred your strategy. Till today my strategy was undeniable better.
Like any trading system losses are inevitable but you keep them small. Bitcoin tends to trend pretty well.
A lot of people don't even recognize any trends. Each time your opponents say that something is impossible (like finding good places to get in or out), what they basically say is that THEY cannot. So it is useless to discuss with them as you speak about something they don't know (it does not exist for them). A good trader will always make more money than someone who is a hodler. But their problem is that they are not good traders. I see many times people buying BTC when the trend in all timeframes is short. So to me it is clear how "good" they are. But most of them don't realize what they are doing. One week after I posted that BTC weekly was short, Baron did this: "Grabbing some more BTC here in a few minutes at a discount while I can." Discount? It was just after the top. While I can? The next six months were full of opportunities to buy cheaper.
One sample? We are talking about YEARS of performance here, and not ignoring a single draw-down. As the manager of the Magellan Fund at Fidelity Investments between 1977 and 1990, Lynch averaged a 29.2% annual return, consistently more than double the S&P 500 stock market index and making it the best-performing mutual fund in the world. Please note, he was able to do this WITHOUT the use of options or other forms of leverage to boost his portfolio.
He never went down 80% on his whole account, like most BTC hodlers did/do. He spread the risk, so one bad position was no problem. Hodlers take hits from 75% and more on their entire position. So your comparison makes no sense at all.