Hi @wildtrader!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 3.453 which ranks you at #7257 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has dropped 11 places in the last three days (old rank 7246).

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 135 contributions, your post is ranked at #134.

Evaluation of your UA score:

• You're on the right track, try to gather more followers.
• You have already convinced some users to vote for your post, keep trying!
• Try to work on user engagement: the more people that interact with you via the comments, the higher your UA score!
• Try to improve on your writing: if you write interesting content, chances are more people will appreciate your content!

Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server

The markets are becoming interesting these times.

You recently posted on your site about a trading chance to turn $500 into $120K mentioning that it's no joke. This is a reward of factor 240 which means an entry at your expected target of $8000 and an exit at 1.9 million (!). Holy lord - am I missing something or is this just a typo? ;-) Because I thought your target down the road was $500K but that may have been adjusted.

Which site? EWT, or FATrader. I didn't know you were a member. You missed the equation. The target is over $120K. That's just simply the 2.0 extension if this is if in fact a wave 2. The market, I expect to provide $500 STOP... on one Bitcoin. That is risking $500 for $120K, but capital-wise you need 1 Bitcoin, so by that means you are turning $8K to $120K. Does that makes sense. I tend to talk risk to reward as it applies to leverage and unleveraged trades. If you talk cost of capital you have a different equation depending on o leverage, or at various leverages.

It was in an additional article on the free area of EWT where probably only a glimpse of the whole board is shared but I still like the content. Very Important stuff that can be applied to general trading and not only cryptos.

I should have read the article properly instead of only skimming it and mixing up the numbers. Now it makes sense thanks for the explanation. Of course 1.9 million sounded too weird and more like McAfee-ish talk misguiding inexperienced people to bet the farm.

LOL