You start dumping. And continue dumping. And continue dumping, as the price dives. You dump until it goes to 500, not just because you dump but because people panic sell. At 500, you start buying. And price goes back up. Rinse and repeat.
what is your average selling price on the way down and what is your average buying price on the way back up? this is the only thing that determines alpha in this simple strategy. take a look at bottoms or lows at any free market. what do you notice?
notice the volume spikes at the lows? this brings the vwap down on the way down and up on the way up. prices move towards liquidity, not away from it. prices bottom when selling stops, the buyers at lows are not overwhelming, yet the snap back is so violent, simply due of lack of sellers. there is where liquidity in reality kills the backtested alpha.
this strategy has no alpha for the big player, maybe there are weak hands that capitulate at tops and bottoms, and this strategy works for a mid size player, by making an aggressive sell to start an avalanche of stops. the big player has better alpha providing heavy liquidly on both sides, and given that the gaming company wants to retain its players, and players don't like to be exposed to extreme volatility, i would say the alpha is in providing liquidity, rather then starting a panic.
Jay, I know you are fully aware of the term "capitulation". You can provoke that daily or even more frequently if you want to. That's where the scoop comes. And you can also control the rebound. You can control it both ways
and determine tops and bottoms.
As for the price being stable, I don't know if that's even desirable or attractive to cryptonites... where are they going to make money to justify their investment if the price remains stable?
Barabbas. Our mission is to promote the gaming platforms once the coins are released. We expect to see a slow continual increase in the price of the coin as the gaming site gains more traction and adds more participants to the whole project thus requiring more coins to supply more players. Manipulating the coin value for short term gain would be counterintuitive to producing long term profits on our multiple gaming platforms. You can see the project has been thought out well. In the long run the combined gaming incomes will far exceed income made on the coins. As we become more successful we will add more applications for others to participate. ie sports book, backgammon,bingo. This will in turn increase the demand on the coin once again driving the coin price up. I believe Bergstake or not the ICO will be the lowest price you will ever see for BRO coin. Please analyze my prediction and respond.
Well Randy I have to say, in light of the latest examination and in contrast with the expectations that you guys have, that I believe you are setting yourselves up for a huge disappointment.
There are a couple of things that are not exactly reassuring on the technical side of things and that goes against your statement of the project as being "well thought of". That at this stage in the game you will change to plan B regarding the mining platform and that the bloating of the blockchain hasn't been thoroughly examined long, long before this time, is, like I said, the contrary to reassuring. And, consequently, makes one thing what other aspects have not been well thought of. The other technical thing that remains an enigma is, probably, even more important: So far we only have a few images, pretty conventional and quite unimpressive as to what the aspect of the platform will be. We don't know at all how that will work and, like I said, it isn't precisely impressive: If you go into any casino en Earth these days, you can see and play poker and other games on a platform much more impressive than that, with video, etc. This is like going to the times of Pac-Man, a decade behind. Not having a working beta that people can actually experience, is, in my view, and insuperable flaw in your ICO launching.
Now, the recent projections that I have read here are a set up for disappointment... to a certain extent. To begin with, Breakout Gamis has posted that the minimal ICO money required is 1,000 BTC, which at current price is 380,000 dollars. On the pother hand, he expects between 10 and 15 times that much... the later putting BRO's launch in the same league of Ethereum. I know it will be comparing apples to Oranges to a certain extent but only in relative terms. Number one, I believe that the Ethereum ICO as well as the constant ones coming into the market plus the "JL&&& ventures and assets including SuperNET have stretched the amount of BTC available in altcoin territory to the ;point that many worthwhile projects, some quite established, are already suffering greatly because of the scarcity of capital; number 2, realistically examined, BRO is just an idea, far from a reality -with less than 1,000 BTC in the ICO it won't even happen-. Admittedly a very good idea and well supported but with too many caveats, self made and circumstantially converging to take for granted a success at the level Breakout Gamins -and you- are predicting.
No, I can't agree with you on the price of the ICO being the lowest. It could be, but far from a sure thing. The whole thing can so easily turn into a debacle that it is quite risky, actually, given the many possible variables, specially on the vital technical side of the coin platform and the gaming platform.
I don't do predictions with so many variables, but I can easily see people originally interested taking their time to see if the interest becomes BTC-vested interest and losing either on the long way of that month-long ICO. Remember that many people that were enthusiastic about Ethereum already are lamenting having "bitten" in view of the long -and not guaranteed- wait ahead. A high percentage of "enthusiastic investors" a month ago will be willing and very happy if they could take their money back right now. The same way, I can see a very big disappointment in your expectations. No, I will not see parity BRO-dollar. Not on the ICO and maybe never down the line. I would need to see many more realities, practical, working realities, to be more hopeful.
And maybe for some the stumbling point will be the "open" ICO. It is absurd for it doesn't change anything... except that this is crypto world and an ample majority of people with some BTC available are not very investment-savvy, on one side and rather "peculiar" on another. Meaning that they have convinced themselves than a closed ICO is "greedy" and you simply will not convince them otherwise no matter how absurd than concoction is in reality, so it will be also a (minimal) factor going against your very optimistic predictions.
Finally, if your more optimistic predictions were to happen, the whole thing looks disproportionate and absurd, starting with the immediate compensation of $ 3 million or more to the developers, some of which, logically, would immediately dump. And following with a "distribution" 2-year period, via promotions and such, that would put on your hands a budget several times above what Caesar's Palace spends in promotion --those 7 million coins could be worth in excess of 10 million dollars if your optimistic predictions come to happen... much more, in fact, if the operation is successful and, like you expect, it has repercussion in the price of the coin. The "distribution" model, in itself, is quite preposterous for you actually are asking people invested in the COIN to pay for the promotion of the CASINO, without obtaining any ownership in it and only the vague hope that supporting the casino expansion will somehow augment the value of the coin. A very tall order, from where I am standing.
Those 7 million coins should be part of the ICO, in my opinion, as it should be a working platform that compares advantageously with what other online casinos already have. And even on that case, it would still be quite risky to assume that the launching, bergstaking, etc, will work flawlessly -or acceptably- from the get go.
So yes, it is a great idea. Many points in its favor. But, like I posted before, a lot of caveats also.
