Does investing more money into stocks increase chances of profit?
I think you are mixing up the likelihood of making a profit with the amount of profit. The likelyhood of profit will be the same, because if you buy $100 worth of shares and the price moves up you will make a profit. If you instead bought $1000 worth of the same shares at the same price and the price moved up you would once again make a profit. In fact if you don't include commissions and other fees, and you buy and sell at the same prices, you percentage profit would be the same.  For example, if you bought at $10 and sold at $12, you percentage gain of 20% would be the same no matter how many shares you bought (not including commissions). So if you bought $100 worth your gain would have been 20% or $20 and if you bought $1000 worth your gain would have been 20% or $200. However, if you include commissions, say $10 in and $10 out, your net profit on $100 would have been $0 (0%) and your net profit on $1000 would have been $180 (18%). The investment return for a given strategy is directly proportional to the amount invested. Invest twice as much, profit (or lose) twice as much. It's a straight multiplier. However, there are some strategies which are less risky with a larger investment, and some investments which have a minimum unit of purchase that puts them out of reach of smaller investors. Have a read of this PF&M article, which @Blackjack has an excellent answer that speaks around risk. Answers which suggest that the return is proportional to the amount invested is a very simplistic argument. It is far more complex than that. I would content that your initial question Does investing more money into stocks increase chances of profit? is not the best question. The answer is it depends upon your investment methodology. The following will increase your chance of overall profit in the stock market
The company released its 2nd Quarter Revenue of $1,957,921 a couple days ago however the stock did not move up in any way. Why? If the company is making money shouldn't the stock go up. But that result doesn't indicate that the company is making money.  The word for making money is profit, not revenue.  Profit equals revenue minus costs.  An increasing revenue could mean decreasing profits.  For example, marketing expenses could eat up the entirety of the new revenue.   This is one of the most basic aspects of researching stocks.  If you are having trouble with this, you might find yourself better suited to invest in mutual funds, where they do this research for you.  In particular, the safest kind of mutual funds for an inexperienced investor are index funds that track a major index, like the S&P 500.   Another issue is that stock prices aren't based on historical results but on expected future results.  Many a company has reported smaller than expected profits and had their price fall even though profits increased from previous results.   Looking at it long term would it hurt me in anyway to buy ~100,000 shares which right now would run be about $24 (including to fee) and sit on it? It would cost you $24.  You might get a return some day.  Or you might waste your money.  Given the comparatively large upside, the consensus seems to be that you will probably waste your money.  That said, it's not a lot of money to waste.  So it won't hurt you that much.  The most likely result remains that the company will go bankrupt, leaving your stock worthless. Patience is the key to success. If you hold strong without falling to temptations like seeing a small surge in the price. If it goes down it comes up after a period of time. Just invest on the share when it reaches low bottom and you could see you money multiplying year after year If you are going to work on making as much money as humanly possible, then you ought to consider investing in the market. [Compound Stock Earnings](http://www.compoundstockearnings.com) agrees that investing in stocks is a fantastic technique to acquire prosperity on your own. Believe it or not, it’s the greatest source of wealth in the history of the world. For that reason, you need to ensure that you get started at the earliest opportunity. I have heard that people say the greater earning means greater   intrinsic value of the company. Then, the stock price is largely based   on the intrinsic value. So increasing intrinsic value due to   increasing earning will lead to increasing stock price. Does this make   sense ? Yes though it may be worth dissecting portions here. As a company generates earnings, it has various choices for what it can do with that money. It can distribute some to shareholders in the form of dividends or re-invest to generate more earnings. What you're discussing in the first part is those earnings that could be used to increase the perceived value of the company. However, there can be more than a few interpretations of how to compute a company's intrinsic value and this is how one can have opinions ranging from companies being overvalued to undervalued overall. Of Mines, Forests, and Impatience would be an article giving examples that make things a bit more complex. Consider how would you evaluate a mine, a forest or a farm where each gives a different structure to the cash flow? This could be useful in running the numbers here. Buying assets doesn't affect your profit, because the money stays on your balance sheet as capital assets instead of cash in bank (unless your tax authorities let you report your accounts on a cashflow basis, which for example they do for very small businesses in the UK). You need to actually spend the money on something you can't turn back to cash later for it to reduce your profit. The more the stock is worth, the more it needs to rise to make a profit. You can buy some stock from Google or amazon, but that's about all the stock you'd have... Start small with companies you know and trust that have an upward trend. No. You're lucky, maybe, but not really a successful investor. Warren Buffet is, you're not him. Sometimes it is easier to pick stocks to bid on, sometimes its harder. I got my successes too. It is easier on a raising market, especially when it is recovering after a deep fall, like now. But generally it is very hard to beat the market. You need to remember that an individual investor, not backed by deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts, is in a disadvantage on the market by definition. So what can you do? Get the deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts. How? By pooling with others - investing through funds. It seems to be that your main point is this: No matter what, my chances cannot be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? In general, yes, that is true, but... Consider this very bad strategy: Buy one share of stock and sell it one minute later, and repeat this every minute of the day. Obviously you would bleed your account dry with fees. However, even this horrible strategy still meets your criteria because: if this bad strategy had an edge beyond the transaction fees you would likely still make a profit. In other words, your conclusion reduces to an uninteresting statement: If there were no transactions fees, then if your trading system has an edge then you will likely make a profit. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but IMHO, that statement, and others made in the question are just obvious things stated in convoluted ways. I don't want to discourage you from thinking about these things though. I personally really enjoy these type of thought experiments. I just feel you missed the mark on this one... The principle behind the advice to not throw good money after bad is better restated in economics terms: sunk costs are sunk and irrelevant to today's decisions.   Money lost on a stock is sunk and should not affect our decisions today, one way or the other.  Similarly, the stock going up should not affect our decisions today, one way or the other.  Any advice other than this is assuming some kind of mispricing or predictability in the market.  Mispricings in general cannot be reliably identified and stock returns are not normally predictable. The only valid (efficient markets) reason I know of to allow money you have lost or made on a stock to affect your decision today is the tax implications (you may want to lock in gains if your tax rate is temporarily low or vice versa). The odds could very well be in your favor, even when the insurance company expects profit. What matters to you is not the expected amount of money you'll have, but the expected amount of utility you'll get from it: getting enough money to buy food to eat is much more important than getting enough money to be able to buy that fiction book too. The more money you have, the less a dollar is worth to you: consequently, if you have enough money, it's worth spending some to prevent yourself from getting into a situation where you don't have enough money. Before putting any significant money into stocks, I would recommend spending at least a year paper trading.  It is amazing how much money you can lose trading stocks when you don't know what you are doing! "Diversification tends to protect you from big losses. But it also tends to ""protect"" you from big gains. In any industry, some companies provide good products and services and prosper while others have problems and fail. (Or maybe the winners are just lucky or they paid off the right politicians, whatever, not the point here.) If you put all your money in one stock and they do well, you could make a bundle. But if you pick a loser, you could lose your entire investment. If you buy a little stock in each of many companies, then some will go up and some will go down, and your returns will be an average of how everyone in the industry is doing. Suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that if I roll a die, it will come up 6. You might be reluctant to take that bet, because you can't predict what number will come up on one roll of a die. But suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that a die will come up 6, 100 times in a row. You might well take that bet, because the chance that it will turn up 6 time after time after time is very low. You reduce risk by spreading your bets. Anyone who's bought stock has surely had times when he said, ""Oh man! If only I'd bought X ten years ago I'd be a millionaire now!"" But quite a few have also said, ""If only I'd sold X ten years ago I wouldn't have lost all this money!""  I recently bought a stock a stock that within a few months rose to 10 times what I paid for it ... and then a few months later the company went bankrupt and the stock was worth nothing. I knew the company was on a roller coaster when I bought the stock, I was gambling that they'd pull through and I'd make money. I guessed wrong. Fortunately I gambled an amount that I was willing to lose." I'll mirror what the others have said in that your expectations for returns are wildly out of line with reality. If you could achieve that with only moderate risk hopefully you can see that you could ladder those returns by re-investing them and become a billionaire in short order. You may have noticed that there are a lot of really financially savvy people who are not billionaires. So the math for your plan falls apart somewhere, obviously. However, in the spirit of being helpful, and with the caveat that super high returns involve super high risk I'll try and point you in the direction where this is theoretically possible, even if the odds would be better buying lottery tickets. One way to get more leverage from your money than just buying stocks is to buy options. With an options strategy your return/loss will be magnified greatly compared to buying stocks. That is, you can lose or gain a much higher multiplier of your original investment. That said, I don't advise doing that with any money that you can't afford to lose every penny of, because you likely will. If you buy stock in established companies, it is vey unlikely that they will lose all their value. Spreading your money across multiple stocks -- diversifying -- reduces that risk because it is extremely unlikely that they all lose all their value at once. Spreading them across multiple industries and adding bonds to the mix increases diversification. Of course the trade-off is that if one of the stocks skyrockets you don't benefit as much as if you had been lucky enough to put all your money in that one stock.  You need to decide for yourself how much risk you are willing to tolerate in exchange for the chance of gains.  Other answers on this site have dealt with this in more detail. All sorts of conditions, yes. Most commonly is a limitation on the exercise date.  The two more common would be American which is exercisable any time, and European which are only exercisable on their expiry date. Sometimes they may be linked to the original asset, and might only be convertible to stock if that original asset is given/sold back to the company.  (Effectively perhaps making the bond convertible to stock). Lots more details on the Pedia, but in short, basically you need to read the warrant contract individually, as each will differ.