This is one of the realest posts I've seen on this board. To break it down further:
One buys 100,000 shares at .63 = $63,000 Then the trade goes against you to .51 If you cut loss and sell, you'll get $51,000 with a loss of $12,000. But you live to play another day. Then, you wait for a nice dip or comfortable lower entry. In this case, you enter at .41. At .41, your $51,000 will buy you 124,390 shares . You're still in the game. Price goes back to just .51 and your 124,000 shares becomes = $63,439 (i.e. $439 profit)
But...
If you didn't cut your loss and wait for a better entry, and the price goes from .63 to .41 and then back up to .51, you'd still be out $12,000. You only break even if the price goes back to .63.
Bottom line is that takes half the effort to recoup your loss if you exit with a small loss, and buy back at lower price. But in the example above where you sell and play the rebound, if the price goes back to .63 then you can sell them for $78,365. That's a profit of $15,365.
I understand no one gets in a play at the very lowest and sells at the very top except the promoters, but it goes to show that holding while the trade goes against you substantially is not the best way to trade these junk stocks. I know this from experience.
Worst case scenario with the above example, you sell at .51 and don't get a bounce play. You're out $12,000 only, but you have $51k to play again tomorrow.
Worst case scenario if you hold at .63, waiting for the stock to rebound... It can easily go to .10. You do the maths on that one.
I've been making some dumb moves lately so I think I need to copy and post that in large letters and stick it up on my computer monitor and maybe use a highlighter too.