Thread: Buying Gold with my Thai savings?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

It's a business, the comments are not necessarily wrong or not true, but they are food for thought and digests for the ignorant and the insecure.

The technical analysis day trader types I know call it 'noise'.

Originally Posted by 9999

Originally Posted by socal

I'm not trying to brag or look smart. Basically, I am very certain how this is all going to play out. I've done hours and hours of reading about this shit since 2008.

That's like sayong "I know how this football game will pan out. I've been following the sport all my life, and know everything about these two teams intimately"....you're a bit cocky coz you called gold early Socal but sooner or later you'll be caught with your pants down making big calls purporting them as certainties.

A football game is a bad comparison. I see the tsunami coming. I'm already at high ground. If that's cocky then so be it. Stay down there and get a close up view of it.

Originally Posted by 9999

The technical analysis day trader types I know call it 'noise'.

the technical traders do create a lot of noises, that's for sure

market timing gurus are actually technical chartists more than fundamental analysts, so that's why I want to call it on their BS

Originally Posted by 9999

And I call bullshit on anyone actively 'investing' in financial markets, gold, whatever, who thinks they're not gambling. Is doesn't mean you're going to lose. You can gamble with an edge.

it's not gambling, the odds are better in a gamble

investment take skills, most individuals don't have it and will lose 90% of the time, this is very well documented in some financial literature

like I said, gambling has better odds, investing take real skills because you are dealing with true randomness, in gambling, the rules set the odds in one of the party "favor".

Originally Posted by Butterfly

investment take skills, most individuals don't have it and will lose 90% of the time, this is very well documented in some financial literature

Take out replace 'investment' with 'wagering' and 'financial markets', insert horse racing, football betting, poker, even lottery in there, and the statement is still true (and well documented).

Originally Posted by Butterfly

nvesting take real skills because you are dealing with true randomness, in gambling, the rules set the odds in one of the party "favor".

That is totally not true for many forms of what people call gambling. An interesting court ruling in New York ruled poker as a game of skill. Professional football bettors register as professionals and report their wins and losses, in the USA. Where do you draw the line? How can you say the odds of a football match are set in stone? Is it not just a price based on perception?

Of course things such as poker machines, some card games, money wheels, roulette etc, where the odds actually are set in stone, you cannot find an edge. Actually, sometimes jackpots provide edges on slot machines (and lotteries). There are 'investors' that pursue these positive expectation opportunities. Their bets are no less valid than those on financial markets. Financial markets are basically a bunch of derivatives of real stuff to make it easy for everyone to gamble on what they think will happen in the future.

I was thinking more like Black Jack and Roulette, and other casino games

poker does take skill, it's not random

Originally Posted by Butterfly

poker does take skill, it's not random

Yet it considered by most a game of 'gambling'. When you go all-in, it's a 'bet', not an investment. So what is the difference?

Anything where the odds can never be certain is a game of skill, so sports betting is just as valid as poker for 'investment' based on skill.

Blackjack is defo beatable. It's harder now because the casinos take measures to stop card counting, and will just plain boot you if you are caught. Some big money was made though when the maths geeks figured it out before the casinos.

It's still possible now to have positive expectation in the now common 8 deck shoes, but it's a tough count, and returns about 0.5% on your total amount bet with a huge standard deviation. Not for the faint hearted, but there are guys doing it even today.

Roulette is beatable or used to be, i used to make thousands years ago on online sites before being banned from them all. Lots of people used to do it, basically you just play red or black, put £1 on red, if red comes in take your £1 winnings off and leave the stake on, if black comes in double your stake to £2, then if red comes in you take £3 out (£2 winning and £1 of your stake, so you've made £1) and leave £1 stake for next spin, if black had come in again double your stake to £4, red would come in take £7 out yet again leaving £1 stake for next spin, and so on. Most i ever had of black coming in was 7 times in a row which had my stake up to £128, seems a lot just to win £1!!! It takes a long time playing like this and is monotonous, tedious and boring but was basically fool proof as in i never lost a single time, and would average out to about £50 an hour, basically if you had nothing to do for a day was an easy way to make £500.

^ Dunno about that 'system' but well played, I did OK 'bonus whoring', ie working the sign up bonuses to suck you in to your advantage. It used to be very juicy, now the edge is quite thin and not really worth it due to the risk of not being paid by dodgy online casinos.

Originally Posted by 9999

^ Dunno about that 'system' but well played, I did OK 'bonus whoring', ie working the sign up bonuses to suck you in to your advantage. It used to be very juicy, now the edge is quite thin and not really worth it due to the risk of not being paid by dodgy online casinos.

Worked perfectly, also used to get all sign up bonuses, i'm going back a good few years though, only problem was finding online casinos which would take a £1/$1 bet on the outside bets red/black, odd/even etc. as any higher and you'd need too much money to cover yourself and you would get banned as soon as they realised what was going on as in regular cash withdrawls and no money being deposited, and obviously they took a closer look at your account and it was game over. Think the longest i ever lasted with one online casino before getting banned was about a month and i took them for over £10k, i normally did well if was still going after a week, always had all money paid out to me when accounts were closed/banned though.

^ What I think you are describing is known as 'martingale' system, and is flawed. If you were playing perfect strategy it's nearly a zero sum game, but not an edge, a slight negative one in fact. Because eventually, 20 blacks will come in a row, and in that very unlikely scenario you get busted and some. So basically you were betting at very short odds, against the house advantage, and never unlucky enough to lose. I don't think there's a mathematical advantage in the play you describe.

Getting the bonuses, and always moving on to the next bonus, you should have won, though playing a martingale risk management strategy is far from optimal. I'm sure most advantage players would agree.

Originally Posted by DrAndy

they all win, and sometimes fabulous amounts

It's funny how they report poker tournament results for TV hype. They add up each players total cash outs, and leave out all the buy-in. So you have losing players with '$980,000 in career winnings'.

Originally Posted by 9999

^ What you are describing is known as 'martingale' system, and is flawed. If you were playing perfect strategy it's nearly a zero sum game, but not an edge, a slight negative one in fact. Because eventually, 20 blacks will come in a row, and in that very unlikely scenario you get busted and some. So basically you were betting at very short odds, against the house advantage, and never unlucky enough to lose. I don't think there's a mathematical advantage in the play you describe.

Getting the bonuses, and always moving on to the next bonus, you should have won, though playing a martingale risk management strategy is far from optimal. I'm sure most advantage players would agree.

It's just odds, as i said most i had was 7 blacks come up in a row, 5 was common, of course theoretically black could have come up an unlimited amount of times in a row and you'd be stopped out but it never went past 7 with me. Basically every time red came up, you won a £1 regardless if you had £1, £2, £4, £8, £16, £32 sitting on it at the time as after every red you take your money off and start with a £1 again and it was fokin tedious doing it hour after hour but you couldn't lose and it was basically free money and lots of it while it lasted.

[quote=9999;2230373]

Originally Posted by OhOh

I changed my physical gold into physical silver as I perceive silver as a better buy than gold right now. Personally I would not buy gold at the current price at this point in time. All over (physical) silver like a rash though.

in what form do you buy silver and from whom may i ask?

^^ What you're describing BB, unless I'm missing something, has been nashed over and debunked (if you;re talking about a martingale variant). I just don't see how the odds are tipped in your favour. Most I've seen at a roulette table is 13 blacks in a row and I don't get around them that much. So just that one time and you're screwed, glad it never happened to you mate.

Originally Posted by draco888

in what form do you buy silver and from whom may i ask?

In granual form from Chinese traders in Chiang Mai. First buy with cash (from gold sold elsewhere), second buy was an exchange (Thai physical) gold for silver granuals. I can have them made into bars but couldn't find silver bars anywhere.

Happy to share the reliable and trustworthy source of the physical granuals.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by 9999

Certainly in my chosen 'investment' vehicles, whenever someone is selling something, it's bogus. If it works, why sell it?

some might and just want to share their thoughts for a fee, a bit like Marc Faber. Who cares what he thinks really, anyone with a bit of knowledge and common sense can have the same conclusions as he does, yet some people will buy his newsletters. It's a business, the comments are not necessarily wrong or not true, but they are food for thought and digests for the ignorant and the insecure.

I don't think it's much of a business thing in his case because I think all the proceeds go to a thai childrens charity if i remember correctly.

Originally Posted by 9999

^^ What you're describing BB, unless I'm missing something, has been nashed over and debunked (if you;re talking about a martingale variant). I just don't see how the odds are tipped in your favour. Most I've seen at a roulette table is 13 blacks in a row and I don't get around them that much. So just that one time and you're screwed, glad it never happened to you mate.

The odds are in your favour as you just keep doubling up till you win then start again, you just have to stick to it and not deviate which can be challenging as it is foking boring but only way you can ever lose if black did come in an x amount of times in a row, i was always covered up to and including 8 times and as i said it never went past 7. Even if it had it would have needed black to come in 9 times in a row on a regular basis for me not to win, and there were a group of us doing it at the time and not one of us had ever had 9 blacks come up in a row. It wouldn't have worked in a real casino as you'd be chucked out straight away, plus when i worked in casinos in the early 90's (life long bans from most of them aswell!!!!), £10 was the minimum bet on the outside bets which makes it a non starter straight away.

Originally Posted by 9999

Yet it considered by most a game of 'gambling'. When you go all-in, it's a 'bet', not an investment. So what is the difference?

why stop to investment ? when risk is involved, everything is a bet, when walking in the street, above all in Thailand

the difference with investment is the way payoff are structured, the returns are too small for being labeled "bets"

^^ Fair enough. The math just doesn't add up for me (unless you add a bonus component). Good point about the min. bet though it does buy you more time. But what are you risking in the event of say 30 misses in a row?

For me to buy this I'd have to see gains over a significant sample size, then start reconsidering the laws of the universe.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

he difference with investment is the way payoff are structured, the returns are too small for being labeled "bets"

Rubbish. There's a tone of short priced betting options. Punters bet 1/2 odds and less all the time.

Originally Posted by 9999

Originally Posted by draco888

in what form do you buy silver and from whom may i ask?

In granual form from Chinese traders in Chiang Mai. First buy with cash (from gold sold elsewhere), second buy was an exchange (Thai physical) gold for silver granuals. I can have them made into bars but couldn't find silver bars anywhere.

Happy to share the reliable and trustworthy source of the physical granuals.

how do you know the purity of the granules? how do you sell? presumably you would have to sell back to whoever you bought from otherwise the spread and assaying costs are going to eat into your gains? have you sold the granules yet?