Originally Posted by
Thremp
What a mush of thoughts/insults.
I don't want a hooker. My posts are either for my own amusement or to give back to a community that has done so much for me. (Mostly enabling me to have a lifestyle that doesn't require hookers to have sex with a living breathing woman. Though hookers do afford me a chance to experience the opposite.)
What you're doing is including a non-fixed estimate of edge when "averaging in". This isn't DCA. DCA is a choice between a lump sum investment or DCA. The DCA option always has a lower total EV due to a lower amount of exposure. This would also apply to any trade where YOU KNOW YOUR EDGE/TRUE VALUE (and also making the assumption there is some trigger to reach it). Again, basic math and a sheet of paper will prove this to be true.
I found hannover at that forum, but not his posts on DCA. Could you link them? I'll gladly point out where he's wrong, if he disagrees with me.
I think most traders are incompetent at risk management because they struggle to quantify their edge. Without an assessment of your edge, you're unable to manage risk. (This should be obvious.) If a trader can't tell me their edge on a position, how can they manage risk? Most sportsbettors I know can tell me within a fairly tight range what their expected edge on a position is.
I'm unsure how this hanover fellow is my daddy. Though I understand really simple math really well. So if he disagrees with me on a basic idea he has to be wrong. Its okay. Sklansky is a great mathematical poker theorist. He's vastly my inferior when it comes to calculating no-vig lines (because I can read Ganchrow's posts and he apparently can't). So... Whether hanover is more capable at many other things is entirely irrelevant.
I'm sorry you're butthurt, but you need to 1) understand what DCA is 2) learn basic math.