Thursday, February 11, 2010

"Past performance is not a guarantee of future profitability" (or so they say on Wall Street). But history is the only crystal ball available to us.

Below is the promised data that compares InvestaPick's triple-index results, and what coulda been achieved using the same set of target betting rules that yesterday pulled the 7-dog trial out of the mire.

OK, OK, the 7DT is still in deep doggy doo as long as a 1 to 5 spread is the rule.

But regular readers will know that I have always preached that a wide spread is the key to beating the odds, and what the difference between the 5x and the 50x max results does is prove my point!

I am still confident that the 5x slump can be turned around, especially after Wednesday's underdog surge, but have to confess that I don't care what happens as much as I once did.

The 7DT assumes a minimum bet of $100, remember, and the 50x rule delivers a 99-day profit of $59,800 or 16.6% of total action.

Drop the minimum bet all the way down to $25 and the performance described in my earlier post today still amounts to almost $15,000, or about $150 a day in overall winnings.

Not too shaggy, as they say in Las Vegas. (That's a bad British pun).

It has been a feeble Feb for IP's IPE "index" with nary a win since January 30, with two days skipped and eight losses for eight.

Even target betting is, as you would expect, hard hit by eight successive losses, but the way it handles them is less painful than InvestaPick's newly revealed loss-taking policy.

Another couple of losing days and target betting will also be in the red against the same set of selections, but right now, my way has us still three grand in the green.

Here's the IPE summary:-

IP's IPC and IPW indexes are doing much better than the IPE data set, but not as well as they woulda if target betting rules had been applied since January 1, 2009.

Here's the relevant information:

The summary in the last screen cut above shows the contrast between IP's overall performance and target betting's.

I will say again that what you see here does not mean that the wizards behind InvestaPick (and in spite of the woes and worrying omissions in the IPE summary, I am still hoping they are not charlatans like Oz) should change their approach.

If their numbers are honest and true, they are at least 20x ahead of the returns offered by banks and bonds, and their risk factor is not much higher than for more conventional investment plans.

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

And please don't tell me that you can't lose it all on Wall Street, because for the last year or so, we have been reading about countless thousands of cautious folk who did just that with no inkling of the risks faced by their life savings.

An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you.