Is it meaningful to tell someone who has been increasing for years, even when overdoing liver lesions or full-portfolio, that it’s dangerous or that they’ll get harmed eventually?
I saw the following post on X (formerly Twitter).
“To people who have continued to grow for years by going all-in with full-position leverage,there's no point in saying it's dangerous or that they'll get caught sooner or later.”。
As long they are winning, that is justice.。
I too in 25 years ago was all-in with full-position leverage and got hit by 9/11, and later kept multiplying by tenfold each year and quickly surpassed 200 million, but even the person themselves can’t understand it, so no one can know whether that person will succeed.
As long they are winning, that is justice.。
I too in 25 years ago was all-in with full-position leverage and got hit by 9/11, and later kept multiplying by tenfold each year and quickly surpassed 200 million, but even the person themselves can’t understand it, so no one can know whether that person will succeed.
I think this claim needs to be considered in parts.First, trading is something you do at your own risk, and whatever method you use, it’s that person’s freedom.
It’s not for you to meddle in other people’s methods.
If the person thinks “this is justice, this is right,” they won’t listen to others no matter what they’re told, and saying it’s “meaningless” would also be correct in the sense that it has no effect.
This is understandable in its own way.
On the other hand, if you’re going to discuss whether “going all-in with reckless leverage or full-position” is dangerous or not, you can certainly say it is dangerous.discuss then you can say it safely.
“No one can know whether that person will succeed or not” is true, and no one can know what the future holds for that individual.
Butin terms of possibility and probability the method is so high-risk that it’s dangerous because the chance of surviving long-term is extremely low.
For example, telling a smoker, “You should quit smoking; it’s bad for your health and shortens your life,” and their counterargument is
“Some people who smoke live healthily to over 100, and we can’t know if the smoker will get sick or have their life shortened.”
is not quite right, is it?
Because the damage from smoking is statistically and probabilistically clear,on average it shortens life and greatly increases the risk of cancer and heart disease.
Indeed, there are smokers who survive unusually long, but that is extremely raresurvivor bias and does not constitute evidence against the overall risk.
Rather, the majority are more liable to harm, and that is why the warning that it’s “dangerous” matters.
The same goes for reckless leverage and full-position trading.
Some people may win for years by luck, but statistically there is a very high risk of going bankrupt in a single blow, and the long-term survival probability is low.
Therefore, when we say it’s “dangerous,” we are not predicting one’s personal future with 100% accuracy, but merely pointing out the structure of expected value and risk.
Back to the original point: it isn’t about telling people how to trade, so I’m not trying to lecture the person who is doing reckless leverage or full-position and say, “You’re in danger.”
However, when beginners see it and think, “As long as I’m winning, it’s justice; full-position and explosive profits are justice!” and imitate it easily,most people are likely to end up exiting (almost no one will survive),so I think there is value in issuing a warning and saying, “It’s dangerous.”In other words, it is meaningful to say it is dangerous.
× ![]()
