the SSS plan is based on a huge value increase, and its biggest default is that it do not regard any possibilities of the bitcoin losing value, or at least which plan should we follow in this case. This is maybe why, in your second post, you gived me an idea on how I should act in the case of the bitcoin value increased or decreased. But, once more, this idea is still based on the fact that the bitcoin value will grow. The boundaries of this way of doing are that, even if the bitcoin could be meant to be more valuable, it still hard to know until which point.
I personnaly believe that it is important to look at both ways, the value increase that could make us richer, or the value decrease that could prevent us from enjoying any profit if we are not willing to short our positions.
It is true that my modified SSS plan does not cut losses in the event that bitcoin dies forever. In fact, by my plan, the net value of the initial investment would go entirely to zero. [Note: this is also true of HODL.]
Let's say we want a plan to ensure that we limit our losses to some fixed percentage of the initial investment. Let's say 50% for the sake of argument. We decide to take either my plan, or the original SSS plan, and modify it according to one of the following methods:
Method A: Use either my plan or the SSS plan, with the caveat that if the bitcoin price drops to the point that the net value is 50% of the initial investment, then we convert all of our bitcoin into dollars. Either that's the end of that, or we re-enter the market at a later point in time. (When? ... )
Method B: Take 50% of the initial investment and put in under a mattress. Use the remaining 50% and risk it all, according to my plan (or the original SSS plan).
Method C: Start out with Method A; if all goes well and the net value goes up, then at some predetermined price point, withdraw enough in $ to cover 50% of the initial investment and stick it under the mattress. Then, with the remainder, convert to my method or the original SSS method. [Or perhaps do a variation of method C, but in stages.]
The problem with Method A is that it leaves you widely exposed to precipitous price drops which are very very common occurrences. The number of times that the price has dropped more than 50% is legion. If you think that you can exit completely at time T1 and reenter at T2 and be better off, then you're basically thinking that you can beat the traders at their own game, at
precisely the time when experienced traders are
most likely to win money from inexperienced traders.
Method B is really just the same thing as my original method (or unmodified SSS), but where you are more conservative in how much you invest.
So I don't like Methods A or B.
Method C works out great if the market goes way up before it goes way down (which of course it will at some point). But it doesn't say what to do if the market goes down soon after you enter it initially.
Part of me is thinking that Method C might be the way to go. But to tell the truth, I'm not convinced yet.
Perhaps, this:
Method D: Same as my plan or the SSS plan, but where the percentage is variable (as a function of ... ?) instead of fixed. But how, and why?
I'm leaning nowadays towards Method D. But I haven't settled onto exactly how to vary the percentage. Some possible parameters: 1) Vary the percentage based on your evaluation of the fundamentals as they change, keeping in mind that it is long term prospects that you are thinking of. 2) Vary the percentage based on how far above or below the long-term trend line we are. Right now we're way below the long term trendline, which would mean to be more aggressive, i.e. higher percentage. 3) Throw in a dash of Method C, like this: start out with lower percentage. If market goes up, siphon off profits and put them under the mattress. Once the original investment is recovered, feel free to increase the percentage and keep it there.
Intuitively, I like parameters 1) and 2). But something tells me to be wary of 3), that it could be one of those things [1] in behavioral finance that we do that feels good but is in fact irrational. The reason is that I can't find a good theoretical justification of it that doesn't commit one of those logical fallacies that we are prone to.
[1] EDIT: Prospect Theory is what I'm talking about, that we (irrationally) value gains and losses differently.
http://www.investopedia.com/university/behavioral_finance/behavioral11.asp