For those seeking high risk and trying to capitalize on rising stock prices -- specifically the potential for sky-rocketing prices (like shares ten-fold or higher within 1 year) -- would one have better odds investing in different stock vs. continually buying shares of select ones they predict? For example:
John buys 200 shares of CADI at $2 for a total of $400, and he expects the price to double in the next few months so that he can get $800. Nobody can know for certain that this will happen, so would John have better odds investing in 1 share of CADI, BOKI, EDMA, ERSO, CEOL, etc., up to 200 for the same portfolio anyways? Since nobody can guarantee that any stock price will sky-rocket in a short period of time or not, what would be advantageous/disadvantageous in pouring $400 in one stock expecting it to go sky-high vs. spreading the same value of many more?
I don't know how difficult this question is to answer or if it's even answerable, but basically:
Is there an advantage in being picky in select stocks when hoping for rising value? Couldn't any stock sky-rocket and nobody can know ahead of time which? Would spreading out be the same?
I of course mean "the same" in terms of odds in becoming wealthy or the like -- not "the same" as in some intrinsic determinator of stock value quantification per se across hypothetical stocks alike.
I just want to know if there's any viable strategy or mathematical sense here. Obviously a high investment in one can yield many more times the value multiplied SHOULD it does rise -- however, it may not and could turn out poorer than, say, spreading across 200 different stocks at $1 a piece where one in two-hundred chances of one of those doing the same thing could yield the same result at a lower or similar multiplication scale (assuming one invests less or roughly the same throughout and regularly keeps buying 'X' shares of each list of stocks they hope will rise vs. just going all in for one or fewer). I know this is confusing, but what're advantages/strategies/etc.?