Skiracer's stock slopes

[Websman]

Going to Cape Cod for a week tomorrow morn...Not sure about internet access...Taking my laptop though...We'll see. Have wide stops on CHINA and QLD...Will let the rest ride till I can see 'em...Later...Doug(IIC)

Doug.
I was watching a news story on internet addiction the other day and...

[skiracer]

Going to Cape Cod for a week tomorrow morn...Not sure about internet access...Taking my laptop though...We'll see. Have wide stops on CHINA and QLD...Will let the rest ride till I can see 'em...Later...Doug(IIC)

Doug,
Going on business, vacation, or a combo of both? Taking the wifey? Where are you going to on the Cape specifically. Oh, and please make sure you get up to Provincetown on the northern tip. Great place to visit and some of the best people watching places in the country. I'm so excited for you. Let my know if you want to borrow those new light blues shoes I bought at the mall the other day. You'll be a big hit up there with them shopping. Keep in touchy. Geez, you'll only be about 7 hours from me. You could drive down for lunch.

[peanuts]

the write-up

Ski,

Great write-up. I'm a technical type of person, with a sprinkle of practicality. I noticed that you are claiming 44% gain. After looking at the plays which you have made (which have been pretty good) I cannot see how you got a 44% return? I reviewed it a little more, and I think the more appropriate terminology to use would be a 44% "success rate" - meaning that 44/100 of your picks were for positive gains. Or am I completely wrong? I'm not trying to chop you down or anything at all. I just wanted to clarify, to myself, what you are meaning when you state that you have a 44% return. I tried a few different ways to come up with 44%, but I can't figure it out. Could you please explain this? Thanks

[skiracer]

Ski,

Great write-up. I'm a technical type of person, with a sprinkle of practicality. I noticed that you are claiming 44% gain. After looking at the plays which you have made (which have been pretty good) I cannot see how you got a 44% return? I reviewed it a little more, and I think the more appropriate terminology to use would be a 44% "success rate" - meaning that 44/100 of your picks were for positive gains. Or am I completely wrong? I'm not trying to chop you down or anything at all. I just wanted to clarify, to myself, what you are meaning when you state that you have a 44% return. I tried a few different ways to come up with 44%, but I can't figure it out. Could you please explain this? Thanks

No problem Peanuts. I take the total gains and total losses from those two columns and subtract them from one another. Then I take that total and divide it by the total gains and I got 44%. I just tried it a different way and took the total loss column and divided it by the total gains column and the % total was 32%. I've been doing it the first way all along but I see your point. Dividing the total losses by the total gains would be the right way instead of subtracting the total losses from the total gains and then dividing the total losses by the total gains. Two different numbers totally. 47% vs. 32%. After that I take the total % gains for the 4 wks. and divide them by 4 wks to get the grand total % after 4 wks. Caught in the act I guess but an honest mistake. How did you do the calculation and would you concur that the second method is correct or is there another way. Post your calcs please. I honestly don't remember how I did the previous weeks. It was late last night when I was doing it and to be honest I had a couple of beers and a couple of fingers of Granmarnier after a later than usual dinner coupled with a couple of puffs of Humboldt County homegrown and there you have it. But the last thing I want to do is take credit for something that I didn't really earn. If it's wrong and I think it is I'll go back over the previous weeks and check them out and correct them as necessary. Thanks for keeping me straight bud. Glad that you're reading my thread that closely. Believe me when I say that I read yours just as thoroughly looking for any stocks that might be worthwhile to make a play and profit from. No time to check the numbers though. Thanks again.

[Tatnic]

Nice call Tatnic. Curious if you used any TA for that.

if you mean did I glance at a chart, then technically, yes I did. I always check out charts. How many times have you seen a questionable company spike/gap up early and then sell off once the suckers are hooked? Is this technical analysis? Not in my book....and I have many books on the subject. But I think most of it's bullshit and prefer to keep things simple. I'm a simple guy...sometimes a simpleton.

[skiracer]

if you mean did I glance at a chart, then technically, yes I did. I always check out charts. How many times have you seen a questionable company spike/gap up early and then sell off once the suckers are hooked? Is this technical analysis? Not in my book....and I have many books on the subject. But I think most of it's bullshit and prefer to keep things simple. I'm a simple guy...sometimes a simpleton.

I've never documented the number of times but I feel pretty sure that a large % of gaps up at the open almost always sell back off around 10/11 am an come back close to the previous days close. One of the reasons I like to give them to at least 10 am before I make a play. Miss out on some but I'd rather be safe and not buy something around 20 at 9:35 and have it come back to 18.50 by 10/10:30.
I think there is merit on both sides of the coin. I've evolved into thinking that you must take a look at the fundamental side of a stock regardless if you rely solely on TA for your trades and I would call myself strictly a technical side short term trader. I also agree with Tatnic about keeping it simple. I think Spike would also but his technical analysis is usually right on the money or as much as one could be taking into account that nothing is for sure and these stocks do what they want to do regardless of the type of analysis.

[peanuts]

...How did you do the calculation and would you concur that the second method is correct or is there another way. Post your calcs please...

Actually, Ski, my previous calculations don't matter. You don't have a 44% gain. This is what you have:

(TICKER, ENTRY, $ GAIN/LOSS, % GAIN/LOSS)
ACLS 7.5, -.52, -6.93%
ACOR 17.70, .67, 3.79%
ECOL 20.30, .51, 2.51%
ELN 15.75, .13, .83%
FMD 17.00, 1.61, 9.47%
KLIC 9.04, -.32, -3.54%
LIOX 7.66, -.23, -3.00%
MED 10.1, .04, .50%
SMSI 16, .37, 2.31%

Now that you have all the percentage gains/losses for each individual stock, you now have to calculate the mean of those percentage gain/losses to get your "Average Gain/Loss" in this week's case your average gain/loss per position and in total is 5.94%, which is very good!

If you are able to do this every week and you compound your gains from one week to the next, your annual percentage gain will be: 2009% That's right folks, Ski is on his way to becoming a ultra rich man! As a matter of fact, in order to double your money, all you need to be able to do is to consistently gain 1.342% each week and compound those gains for 52 weeks, and you will double your money in a year. Here's the math:

$1000 initial investment (or present value):

1000*(1.01342^52)=2000.10

-after 52 weeks of compounding interest at 1.342%, your total future value becomes $2000, plus a dime for the wishing well

you see?

Sticky, did I do this right?

[Tatnic]

Actually, Ski, my previous calculations don't matter. You don't have a 44% gain. This is what you have:

(TICKER, ENTRY, $ GAIN/LOSS, % GAIN/LOSS)
ACLS 7.5, -.52, -6.93%
ACOR 17.70, .67, 3.79%
ECOL 20.30, .51, 2.51%
ELN 15.75, .13, .83%
FMD 17.00, 1.61, 9.47%
KLIC 9.04, -.32, -3.54%
LIOX 7.66, -.23, -3.00%
MED 10.1, .04, .50%
SMSI 16, .37, 2.31%

Now that you have all the percentage gains/losses for each individual stock, you now have to calculate the mean of those percentage gain/losses to get your "Average Gain/Loss" in this week's case your average gain/loss per position and in total is 5.94%, which is very good!

If you are able to do this every week and you compound your gains from one week to the next, your annual percentage gain will be: 2009% That's right folks, Ski is on his way to becoming a ultra rich man! As a matter of fact, in order to double your money, all you need to be able to do is to consistently gain 1.342% each week and compound those gains for 52 weeks, and you will double your money in a year. Here's the math:

$1000 initial investment (or present value):

1000*(1.01342^52)=2000.10

-after 52 weeks of compounding interest at 1.342%, your total future value becomes $2000, plus a dime for the wishing well

you see?

Sticky, did I do this right?

Your approach was ok, but you calculated FMD's return incorrectly because the entry price was $70, not $17. That makes it a 2.3% gain, not 9.5%.
That makes the average gain flat (very slightly negative) for the week.

I once reviewed a structural engineer's report on the potential for converting an old movie theatre into a museum. You should have seen this report...it was a thing of beauty, page after page of intricate calculations (all correct) and graphics, all carefully bound. The bill for that report must have easily been 5 figures. Anyone would have been proud to put their stamp on it, except me. After reading the report and visiting the building I knew it just wasn't right and soon found out why. He had made a simple measurement error (and therefor an incorrect assumption) on one of the compression cords of the steel trusses and thus extrapolated incorrectly on all of the roof trusses and concluded that the building should not be used..ie it wouldn't pass current codes. That beautiful report wasn't worth the paper it was written on because of a simple measurement error and the incorrect assumptions used as a result of that blunder. I believe the owner asked and received a refund on that report.

[skiracer]

Actually, Ski, my previous calculations don't matter. You don't have a 44% gain. This is what you have:

(TICKER, ENTRY, $ GAIN/LOSS, % GAIN/LOSS)
ACLS 7.5, -.52, -6.93%
ACOR 17.70, .67, 3.79%
ECOL 20.30, .51, 2.51%
ELN 15.75, .13, .83%
FMD 17.00, 1.61, 9.47%
KLIC 9.04, -.32, -3.54%
LIOX 7.66, -.23, -3.00%
MED 10.1, .04, .50%
SMSI 16, .37, 2.31%

Now that you have all the percentage gains/losses for each individual stock, you now have to calculate the mean of those percentage gain/losses to get your "Average Gain/Loss" in this week's case your average gain/loss per position and in total is 5.94%, which is very good!

If you are able to do this every week and you compound your gains from one week to the next, your annual percentage gain will be: 2009% That's right folks, Ski is on his way to becoming a ultra rich man! As a matter of fact, in order to double your money, all you need to be able to do is to consistently gain 1.342% each week and compound those gains for 52 weeks, and you will double your money in a year. Here's the math:

$1000 initial investment (or present value):

1000*(1.01342^52)=2000.10

-after 52 weeks of compounding interest at 1.342%, your total future value becomes $2000, plus a dime for the wishing well

you see?

Sticky, did I do this right?

I don't see it that way and don't figure my gains or losses in that manner. It's a matter of perception I guess but I think in the end it probably all would work out to be the same.
I figure it based on the increase or decrease in the total amount of trading capital in my account. The amount either goes up a specific % or goes down a specific % each week. That is based on the amount of capital that is in use each week with the number of positions I have open and closed during the week and my position sizing model which is calculated according to my account balance and an allocated amount per each trade or position. I'm not going to get into discussing how much I allocate for each full position size but I look at each full position as 1000 shares. The amount allocated per full position will increase or decrease as the account balance either grows or decreases. Some of these trades are for 1000 shares and some might be for 5000 shares depending on the price of the stock. Some might be for only a half position because of the price of the stock or how strongly I feel about the trade or some combination of both. But it is all based on 1000 share blocks and how much money is in the account at any given time.
I don't mind if you want to keep track of my calculations in any fashion that you want to do it or if you disagree with how I calculate the gains or losses. I haven't had the time to go back and refigure my calculations for this past week yet but I do think that I may have made a mistake and that the number is closer to 32% for the week. Whether or not the gain was 47 % or 32% it still represents the amount made over the amount lost and the total increase in the account balance. Those are the percentages that I am dealing with.
So go back and refigure the whole ball of wax and then compound those numbers over 4 weeks of straight gains and what % would you have. I think that the numbers would be very close to what I have stated.
For a young kid I like Stky, but in all honesty I don't really have the patience for young kids and how much they think they know or even want to be bothered taking that into consideration. Let Stky accumulate a few million dollars of his own someday to trade with and then let him do his own figuring and not mine. Do me a favor and refigure those numbers and compound them out for me will you please. I would like to see the results.

[Tatnic]

if you mean did I glance at a chart, then technically, yes I did. I always check out charts. How many times have you seen a questionable company spike/gap up early and then sell off once the suckers are hooked? Is this technical analysis? Not in my book....and I have many books on the subject. But I think most of it's bullshit and prefer to keep things simple. I'm a simple guy...sometimes a simpleton.

That post sounds a little glib for me (and I wrote it). Thanks for the kudos Spike, but lets see what the stock does next week before I pat myself on the back. I haven't closed the position and wasn't thinking it would be a short-term play either.

[Tatnic]

I don't see it that way and don't figure my gains or losses in that manner. It's a matter of perception I guess but I think in the end it probably all would work out to be the same.
I figure it based on the increase or decrease in the total amount of trading capital in my account. The amount either goes up a specific % or goes down a specific % each week. That is based on the amount of capital that is in use each week with the number of positions I have open and closed during the week and my position sizing model which is calculated according to my account balance and an allocated amount per each trade or position. I'm not going to get into discussing how much I allocate for each full position size but I look at each full position as 1000 shares. The amount allocated per full position will increase or decrease as the account balance either grows or decreases. Some of these trades are for 1000 shares and some might be for 5000 shares depending on the price of the stock. Some might be for only a half position because of the price of the stock or how strongly I feel about the trade or some combination of both. But it is all based on 1000 share blocks and how much money is in the account at any given time.
I don't mind if you want to keep track of my calculations in any fashion that you want to do it or if you disagree with how I calculate the gains or losses. I haven't had the time to go back and refigure my calculations for this past week yet but I do think that I may have made a mistake and that the number is closer to 32% for the week. Whether or not the gain was 47 % or 32% it still represents the amount made over the amount lost and the total increase in the account balance. Those are the percentages that I am dealing with.
So go back and refigure the whole ball of wax and then compound those numbers over 4 weeks of straight gains and what % would you have. I think that the numbers would be very close to what I have stated.
For a young kid I like Stky, but in all honesty I don't really have the patience for young kids and how much they think they know or even want to be bothered taking that into consideration. Let Stky accumulate a few million dollars of his own someday to trade with and then let him do his own figuring and not mine. Do me a favor and refigure those numbers and compound them out for me will you please. I would like to see the results.

Yes, I agree. Its possible to have a positive, average gain over the course of time but to end up with a loss, or visa versa. Just as you described its a function of position size too, ie total dollar size of the position. Dr. Jack makes very little per trade on a % basis, but the absolute dollar amount is sizable.

[Runner]

Ski,

Great write-up. I'm a technical type of person, with a sprinkle of practicality. I noticed that you are claiming 44% gain. After looking at the plays which you have made (which have been pretty good) I cannot see how you got a 44% return? I reviewed it a little more, and I think the more appropriate terminology to use would be a 44% "success rate" - meaning that 44/100 of your picks were for positive gains. Or am I completely wrong? I'm not trying to chop you down or anything at all. I just wanted to clarify, to myself, what you are meaning when you state that you have a 44% return. I tried a few different ways to come up with 44%, but I can't figure it out. Could you please explain this? Thanks

A system with only a 44% hit rate can be more profitable then a system of 60% hit rate.
Ski, if you don't mind me asking what was your risks points or stops set on your plays? I'll throw a different view into this. I don't need any dollar values as to size of your positions..

[Runner]

Here is an example. say you risk 8% on each position. This means you bail at a 8% loss. Now if you are not selling for at least a 8% profit on each position and sell with only .50 or 2% profit then you have a negative expectancy system. This system would not be very profitable in the long term. This means you are willing to let a 8% loss occur and not an 8% profit. Does this make any sense?

[skiracer]

A system with only a 44% hit rate can be more profitable then a system of 60% hit rate.
Ski, if you don't mind me asking what was your risks points or stops set on your plays? I'll throw a different view into this. I don't need any dollar values as to size of your positions..

My stops are always set at 7%. I stated that ACLS breached that point and I exited the position. Some are set physically and trigger themselves at 7% and others that I am watching are taken care of by me if and when they breach that point.

Tatnics last post hit the nail right on the head. It's a matter of positon sizing according to what suits you and how much capital you have to use and what you want to allocate per trade/block of stock. I use 1000 shares as my base unit or block per trade to start with.

If you go back a day or so ago and go through Jack Haddad's posts you see where someone asked him how much he was ahead and how much he traded per position. His response was that it was based on what was in the account and a percentage of that if I remember correctly. It's a thought out system that like everything else is planned out in advance.

And by the way the only position that was closed out this week was ACLS. So maybe I should take into consideration changing that format to reflect exactly what is going on. In actuality the list was in the negative for the week if you looked at it from that perspective. I haven't earned a nickel of any of that money that's in the green yet.

[peanuts]

Do me a favor and refigure those numbers and compound them out for me will you please. I would like to see the results.

Normally, I would do a favor like this for you, Ski, but you aren't going to get anything out of my results other than, "oh wow, that's cool"

You are approaching your weekly return in a totally different way than how I would approach it. I really can't get any good statistical information from your numbers, but it doesn't really matter. I'm more interested in the actual stocks in the portfolio, not what you make from them. But, I hope you do well.