炒股的正确思考模式先要不亏钱,然后才赚钱讲解

炒股的正确思考模式：先要不亏钱，然后才赚钱

标签Tags:

加载中… 发博文博文美国股市的投资技巧和理念

/meigu168[订阅][手机订阅] 首页博文图片关于我个人资料美股投资智囊进入我的空间播客微博博客等级：读取中… 博客积分：读取中… 博客访问：读取中… 关注人气：读取中… 相关博文

浪迹夏天，快乐美好

小浪

信心有时候一分钱都不值！

百年一人

20100518中石化您该敦

spengq

5月18日（周二）大盘直播

丁大卫

零风险：周二早盘分析及操作提

陈文

[独家]越跌越买的的时间到了

揭幕者

纵有风雨，勿失信心

投资独行客

股市再遭遇做多信心崩溃

陆瞎子

第六百一十三篇,请大家告诉我｀武林外传隐躲任务;（转帖）中国

中国红山文化

下午大盘在2478点启稳反弹

杰理通

10家公司大股东增持9.56亿元股票村操盘手

更多>> 推荐博文

徐小明：周二操作策略

徐小明

数以亿计的暴利在这产生

封起

交割日行情提前上演

股市风云

虎年第二次翻番的起点

wu2198

再创新低等待两大市场信号

占豪

报复性反弹在周三爆发

趋势之友

百点长阴背后的主力动向

光哥

值得重点关注的板块机会

股市风云

谁是大跌幕后推手

光哥

本轮调整正经受最后洗礼

淘金客

查看更多>> 正文字体大小：大中小炒股的正确思考模式：先要不亏钱，然后才赚钱(2007-09-17 04:26:49)转载标签：证券/理财美股美国股市美国股票投资概率赚钱亏钱思考模式分类：美股投资理念

编者前言：

如果你喜欢看Deal or No Deal这个电视节目，你一定会设身处地问自己：如果换了我来做这个游戏，我是继续碰运气呢，还是接受已经到手的钱。正如文中所讲的，大多数人选择的是碰运气，因为大家只关心能赚多少钱，而不考虑失误和亏损的可能，也就是只想回报、不问风险。这和买彩票的心态是一样的，虽然中头奖和被雷劈的概率差不多，每次投入的钱等于100%亏损，但人们还是经不住诱惑，原因就是只专注于“有可能”赚到的钱，而忘记了更大的可能性是亏钱。在股票投资中，我们面临着同样的问题。你为什么喜欢买低价的股票？为什么想知道目标价？为什么决定炒外汇？是不是因为满眼都是哗啦啦的钞票，希望更多更快地赚到钱？

可是你真的赚到了吗？要不要换一个思考模式，先不要考虑赚钱，想一想怎么避免失误，怎么保证不亏钱。电影《Wall Street》中的Gordon Gekko说过一句至理名言：I don't throw darts at a board. I bet on sure things. Read Sun-Tzu, The Art of War. Every battle is won before it's ever fought. 设计一个交易系统，列出所有可能失败的因素，选择成功概率最高的机会下手，争取每一次都有十足的把握。当你把所有亏钱的可能性都排除，剩下的自然就是赚钱了……

编者：三维预测网站 -

Deal or Bad Deal?

Be smart when taking risks with your own money

By Chuck Jaffe, , March 15, 2006

A friend of mine warned me that I would hate the hit NBC game show "Deal or No Deal," so I didn't bother watching until last week, when it was being aired while I was captive on two cross-country flights.

He was right; I hate the show.

The problem is that now that I have seen it, I can't stop watching because it's a live-action financial train wreck where people showcase the kind of thinking that short-circuits investment decisions. Contestants routinely make horrible, nonsensical, illogical choices that, when not

made in the context of a game show,有人做过激光往痣吗?请教几个题目., can create real financial hardships.

To see why that is, you have to understand the game and the underpinnings of financial decisions.

"Deal or No Deal," hosted by comedian Howie Mandel, involves a contestant who is given the choice of 26 cases, each held by a model and filled with a card representing an amount of money between one cent and $1 million. The amounts are placed randomly in the cases.

The contestant picks one case to be their own, then proceeds to call out numbers, so that the models can open other cases and reveal their contents.

As those cases are opened, the potential reward awaiting the contestant starts to take shape. Knock out the low-dollar values, and the odds of getting a big reward increase.

Periodically, however, the game's "banker" calls host Mandel. He is making an offer to the contestant of a certain amount of money, effectively the "expected value" of all of the remaining amounts left on the board. Contestants can accept the banker's deal, or open more cases, knowing that the very next case could wipe out their hope for capturing the big jackpot, and that the banker will respond by lowering the next offer accordingly.

Take the case of a recent participant, who was down to four possibilities, two under $250, then $50,000 and $500,000. He was offered nearly $140,000 to walk away, and he had a 75 percent chance of leaving with an amount much lower. Never mind that the offer was several times the guy's annual salary, the guy was playing with fire.

Of course, it's a game. Talk to anyone who has seen the show and they will say how they might take chances on television that wouldn't happen in real life.

But if they have a life insurance policy and are offered a life-settlement or viatical settlement -- basically allowing them to get a slug of money now to walk away from the eventual benefits of their policy -- they're facing a "Deal or No Deal" kind of situation.

Even in choosing stocks, where an investor might be deciding between a safe, steady return expected from an established dividend-paying stock and the potential rocket-like returns of the red-hot issue-du-jour, the decision is too often based on the wrong inputs.