[Make defeat the baseline value] Do not adjust the procedure until it aligns four times

? Use “not fixing losses” as the baseline until four matches are achieved

Good evening!

This is Masashi ^^

Today I’m writing for people who, after seeing one loss, immediately want to adopt a new improvement plan.

Even if you follow the same verification order, losses will occur due to market fluctuations.

If you change the procedure after a single loss, you’ll have no data left to compare. Rather than amount of knowledge, I’ll narrow the verifications used in this moment.

If you align four repetitions of the same procedure, you can separate a one-off result from a common breakdown. We’ll make the phrase “losses you don’t need to fix” the standard for today.

? When to use “losses you don’t need to fix”

Breaking down situations shows that even with the same verification order, losses occur due to market fluctuations.

If you change the procedure after one loss, there will be no data left to compare. Skipping this discomfort makes only the conclusion likely to be decided first.

What you especially want to avoid is deciding the cause from a single result and changing the verification order itself before comparing.

From the viewpoint of “losses you don’t need to fix,” the explanations you create after the fact should not be returned to your pre-order decision materials.

Keep the loss as an anticipated cost and treat four repetitions of the same procedure as a single comparison unit

This time’s starting point is to continue recording without modifying the procedure until at least two common points appear.

? Practice to do in one week

The first task is to lay out the most recent four losses in the same format and mark only the common breakdowns.

To implement “losses you don’t need to fix,” we focus first on whether we could reproduce the same verifications rather than profits or counts.

The main metric to record is the number of times you could determine changes after aligning four repetitions of the same procedure.

Even on days you couldn’t, by keeping them, you’ll see where and when someone who wants to immediately adopt a new improvement plan can place their product usage.

The one-week trial of “losses you don’t need to fix” counts only the number of times you could decide changes after aligning four repetitions of the same procedure.

Do not increase the practice of “losses you don’t need to fix”; keep seven days of the same item for comparison.

✅ Three verifications when using “losses you don’t need to fix”

First, verify that all four repetitions use the same verification order and termination conditions.

Next, state in your own words how many times out of four the breakdowns are common.

Finally, decide to continue recording without modifying the procedure until common points appear two or more times.

If even one of the three items is blank, close that scenario when executing “losses you don’t need to fix.”

When using “losses you don’t need to fix,” put the conditions for passing over ahead of the reasons for adoption.

Stop criteria for “losses you don’t need to fix”: until common points appear two or more times, continue recording without modifying the procedure.

? Points to check whether you used the same verification order and termination conditions for all four repetitions

The first step here is to keep the mindset: leave the losses as a cost within expectation and treat four repetitions of the same procedure as one unit of comparison.

Aligning four repetitions of the same procedure allows you to separate one-off results from common breakdowns. Do not hurry to eliminate your anxiety; reduce what you verify.

First, confirm that all four repetitions use the same verification order and termination conditions.

Second, confirm how many times among the four the breakdown is common.

If even using “losses you don’t need to fix” as a baseline does not connect the verifications, you may leave the conclusion as “unknown.”

To implement “losses you don’t need to fix,” place the condition that stops your judgment before your feelings.

? How to use GOLD antidote for “losses you don’t need to fix”

Make GOLD antidote verification order the basis for comparison, searching for common points across multiple occurrences rather than a single instance of emotion.

In scenarios where you use “losses you don’t need to fix,” set the purpose of having the product to the reproduction of verifications, not the number of occurrences.

From a state where progress proceeds for different reasons each time, if common points appear two or more times, keep recording without modifying the procedure until that point.

Therefore, the more someone wants to adopt a new improvement plan after one loss, the more you need to decide the context in which you use the tool rather than the tool’s name.

To implement “losses you don’t need to fix,” GOLD antidote is not a substitute for answers but a tool to avoid scattering verifications.

The number four is not a guarantee of win rate; it is an observation unit to prevent breaking the procedure by a single result.

⚠ Movements to avoid with “losses you don’t need to fix”

The easiest to revert is deciding the cause from a single result and changing the verification order itself before comparing.

In records for “losses you don’t need to fix,” do not fix everything at once; only review the parts where all four repetitions use the same verification order and termination conditions.

Don’t fix the result; fix the forward-placed verifications of how many times the breakdown is common among the four repetitions.

When you align four repetitions of the same procedure and then decide changes, keep the same standard for counting so that a borderline decision isn’t carried over to the next time.

In the review of “losses you don’t need to fix,” do not break verifications that you were able to uphold with a single result.

Changes for “losses you don’t need to fix” should be one at a time. The next week, compare in the same scenario.

? People who can base decisions on “losses you don’t need to fix”

Ideal for those who, upon seeing one loss, immediately want to adopt a new improvement plan.

The judgment of “losses you don’t need to fix” is not about discarding discretion but using discretion in the same order.

On the other hand, four repetitions are not a guarantee of win rate; they are an observational unit to prevent breaking the procedure by single results.

GOLD antidote does not guarantee profits and is not a product to justify reasons for adoption until common points appear two or more times.

Those who can decide in advance which situations not to use the tool in are able to use it more realistically.

Practice for “losses you don’t need to fix” should be checked for misalignment with judgment in demos or small conditions.

? Summary: Losses you don’t need to fix

What I wanted to convey is to keep the losses as a cost within expectation and treat four repetitions of the same procedure as one unit of comparison.

First, check that all four repetitions use the same verification order and termination conditions.

Next, verify how many times the breakdown is common among the four.

And until common points appear two or more times, continue recording and skip that one instance if necessary.

Starting tomorrow, lay out the most recent four losses in the same format and begin by marking only the common breakdowns.

If you can keep a count of how many times you could decide changes after aligning four repetitions, you’ll see evidence that your own judgments have changed, beyond just wins or losses.

If you are the kind who wants to adopt a new improvement plan as soon as you see one loss, please check the contents and usage of GOLD antidote ^^

Keep this single “losses you don’t need to fix” as you move to the next scenario.

Pre-purchase verification: Four repetitions are not a guarantee of win rate but an observational unit to avoid breaking the procedure by single results. Please see if it fits the role you seek.

?View details of GOLD antidote

Thank you always for reading ^^