How is a probability cone read?
A number of ways exist to calculate the chances of a particular outcome. Options, for example, use current price, cost of money, and volatility among other factors to price the chance of an underlying asset reaching a certain price in a certain timeframe.  A graphical forecast simply puts these calculations into a visual format. That said, it appears the image you offer shows the prediction as it existed in the past along with how the stock has done since.  A disclaimer - The odds of a fair die being rolled to a given number are 1 in 6. It's a fact. With stocks, on the other hand, models try to simulate real life and many factors can't be accounted for.
Funny how stealing becomes OK after you hit a certain limit of how much you steal and who you steal it from, isn't it?  People seem more and more to have some sense of entitlement and selfishness.  I read the article and got the sense that it said the corporations should not be allowed to go bankrupt so easily, where a lot of people here read it that common people should be allowed to be as dishonest as the corporations.  Hopefully, there are more people like you and me in the world, and less like the greedy ones. Credit scores have a huge financial impact on consumers, even though most people don’t know how they are calculated or which bad habits may be driving theirs down. Your credit score is a number on a scale of 300 to 900 that can affect all of your financial decisions, from shopping for groceries to applying for a mortgage. Read on to find out why a good credit rating is so important. 4 Things to Know About Your Credit Score Why it’s important. Throughout your life, you will probably rely on your credit to acquire the items that you want and need but can’t necessarily pay cash for. Each time you buy something on credit, merchants are taking a gamble on you; the bet is "There's a lot of personal preference and personal circumstance that goes into these decisions.  I think that for a person starting out, what's below is a good system.  People with greater needs probably aren't reading this question looking for an answer. How many bank accounts should I have and what kinds, and how much (percentage-wise) of my income should I put into each one?  You should probably have one checking account and one savings / money market account.  If you're total savings are too low to avoid fees on two accounts, then just the checking account at the beginning.  Keep the checking account balance high enough to cover your actual debits plus a little buffer.  Put the rest in savings. Multiple bank accounts beyond the basics or using multiple banks can be appropriate for some people in some circumstances.  Those people, for the most part, will have a specific reason for needing them and maybe enough experience at that point to know how many and where to get them. (Else they ask specific questions in the context of their situation.) I did see a comment about partners - If you're married / in long-term relationship, you might replicate the above for each side of the marriage / partnership.  That's a personal decision between you and your partner that's more about your philosophy in the relationship then about finance specifically. Then from there, how do I portion them out into budgets and savings?  I personally don't believe that there is any generic answer for this question.  Others may post answers with their own rules of thumb.  You need to budget based on a realistic assessment of your own income and necessary costs.  Then if you have money some savings.  Include a minimal level of entertainment in ""necessary costs"" because most people cannot work constantly.  Beyond that minimal level, additional entertainment comes after necessary costs and basic savings.  Savings should be tied to your long term goals in addition to you current constraints. Should I use credit cards for spending to reap benefits? No. Use credit cards for the convenience of them, if you want, but pay the full balance each month and don't overdo it.  If you lack discipline on your spending, then you might consider avoiding credit cards completely." It's just like any other ad, the idea isn't necessarily for you to go to Gatorade.com and get a truckload delivered as soon as you see their TV ad when watching ESPN- the goal is to put the brand in your mind.  3 days later you're at the store and on the juice and soda aisle and are thinking 'why get a case of Pepsi when I can grab some Gatorade and be a little healthier like LeBron James, I work out sometimes, probably I need to stay better hydrated.'  Swap out the product of your choice appropriately if that metaphor doesn't fly for you. You're scrolling through Google results and see a Galaxy S8 ad and you're more likely to give them a look when you're shopping for your next phone- they're not expecting you to go to the website and buy one now, but based on your search history they know you're into technology (you googled 'best phone 2017' once), your phone plan is probably ending soon (you searched 'sprint contract'), your carrier sells the S8 (from that time you clicked a link reading 'how to avoid sprint early termination fee') and you like being on the cutting edge of stuff (you watched a video entitled 'is my iPhone waterproof'). Boom- you're the target market.   There's a couple million people just like you- which is why ad impressions are as important as click-throughs and are billed appropriately. Sure- the guy that clicks the link is more likely to buy, but you read it and are thinking about it- so on the aisle you'll think 'Gatorade, eh, why not?'. "@jidugger mostly got it right. It basically mean that past performance of a stock, or a basket of stocks, are not at all useful when trying to predict its future. There is no proven correlation between past and future performance. If there was such a correlation, that was ""proven"" or known, then investors would quickly exploit this correlation by buying or selling this stock, thus nullifying the prediction. It doesn't mean the specific individuals cannot predict the future stock market - hell, if I set up 2^100 different robots, where every robots gives a different series of answers to the 100 questions ""how will stock X do Y days from now"" (for 1<=Y<=100), then one of those robots would be perfectly correct. The problem is that an outside observer has no way of knowing which of the predictor robots is right. To say that stock is memoryless strikes me as not quite right -- to   the extent that stocks are valued based on earnings, much of what we   infer about future earnings relies on past and present earnings. To put it another way - you have $1000 now, and need to decide whether to invest in a particular stock, or a stock index. The ""memoryless"" property means that no matter how many earning reports you view ... by the time you see them, the stock price already accounts for them, so they're not useful to you. If the earning reports are positive, the stock is already ""too high"" because people bought it before you did. So on average, you can't use this information to predict the stock's future performance, and are better off investing in an index fund (unless you desire extra risk that doesn't come with more profitability)." I don't know too much about the kelly criterion, but going by the other answers it sounds like it could be quite risky depending how you use it. I have been taught the first thing you do in trading is protect your existing capital and any profits you have made, and for this reason I prefer and use Position Sizing (PS). The concept with PS is that you only risk a small % of your capital on every trade, usually not more than 1%, however if you want to be very aggressive then not more than 2%. I use 1% of my capital for every trade. So if you are trading with an account of $40,000 and your risk R on every trade is 1%, then R = $400. As an example, say you decide to buy a stock at $10 and you work out your initial stop to be at $9.50, then our maximum risk R of $400 is divided by the stop distance of $0.50 to get your PS = $400/$0.50 = 800 shares. If the price then drops after your purchase, your maximum loss (subject to no slippage) would be $400.  If the price moves up you would raise your stop until your potential loss becomes smaller and smaller and then becomes a gain once your stop moves above your initial purchase price. The aim is to make your gains be larger than your losses. So if your average loss is kept to 1R or less then you should aim to get your average gains to 2R, 3R or more. This would be considered a good trading system where you will make regular profits even with a win ratio of 50%. "John Bensin's answer covers the math, but I like the plain-English examples of the theory from William Bernstein's fine book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator.  At the author's web site, you can find the complete chapter 1 and chapter 2, though not chapter 3, which is the one with the ""multiple coin toss"" portfolio example I want to highlight. I'll summarize Bernstein's multiple coin toss example here with some excerpts from the book.  (Another top user, @JoeTaxpayer, has also written about the coin flip on his blog, also mentioning Bernstein's book.) Bernstein begins Chapter 1 by describing an offer from a fictitious ""Uncle Fred"": Imagine that you work for your rich but eccentric Uncle Fred. [...] he   decides to let you in on the company pension plan. [...] you must pick   ahead of time one of two investment choices for the duration of your   employment: Certificates of deposit with a 3% annualized rate of return, or, A most peculiar option: At the end of each year Uncle Fred flips a coin. Heads you receive a 30% investment return for that year, tails a   minus 10% (loss) for the year. This will be hereafter referred to as   ""Uncle Fred’s coin toss,"" or simply, the ""coin toss."" In effect, choosing option 2 results in a higher expected return than option 1, but it is certainly riskier, having a high standard deviation and being especially prone to a series of bad tosses.  Chapters 1 and 2 continue to expand on the idea of risk, and take a look at various assets/markets over time.  Chapter 3 then begins by introducing the multiple coin toss example: Time passes. You have spent several more years in the employ of your   Uncle Fred, and have truly grown to dread the annual coin-toss   sessions. [...] He makes you another offer. At the end of each year,   he will divide your pension account into two equal parts and conduct a   separate coin toss for each half [...] there are four possible   outcomes [...]: [...]   Being handy with numbers, you calculate that your annualized return   for this two-coin-toss sequence is 9.08%, which is nearly a full   percentage point higher than your previous expected return of 8.17%   with only one coin toss. Even more amazingly, you realize that your   risk has been reduced — with the addition of two returns at the   mean of 10%, your calculated standard deviation is now only 14.14%, as   opposed to 20% for the single coin toss. [...] Dividing your portfolio between assets with uncorrelated results increases return while decreasing risk. [...]   If the second coin toss were perfectly inversely correlated   with the first and always gave the opposite result [hence, outcomes   1 and 4 above never occurring], then our return would always be 10%.   In this case, we would have a 10% annualized long-term return with zero risk! I hope that summarizes the example well.  Of course, in the real world, one of the tricks to building a good portfolio is finding assets that aren't well-correlated, and if you're interested in more on the subject I suggest you check out his books (including The Four Pillars of Investing) and read more about Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT)." What secular religious wannabe non-sense. Sure some things are random and you have the same chance as the next guy all other things considered equal, but the chances of all other things being equal is nil to zero. Luck is an illusion of probability, and it's better to shape those odds in your own favor than not. You say as much in your post, so why even argue with me about it?