50k account profits POLL

What do you think the realistic monthly profits for 50k account?

  • less than 1%

    Votes: 13 8.7%
  • 1%

    Votes: 38 25.3%
  • 10%

    Votes: 66 44.0%
  • 50%

    Votes: 9 6.0%
  • 100%

    Votes: 6 4.0%
  • more than 100%

    Votes: 17 11.3%

  • Total voters
    150
Quote from HowardCohodas:

What are your expectations?

... that turning $50k into 500k in 24 months is not likely, normal or even remotely supported in the world of trading, despite the fact that it constantly get's tossed around (10% monthly) like a realistic figure...

turning 50k into 160k in 24 months has no support and that's only five percent...

sadly there is no evidence that the average trader can even generate 2% a month consistently.

Typically what follows here is; that's a crock I make "x" every month and have since the cows came home...

and,

If I can't make more than 5% a month what's the point of trading?

Which is a good question. It comes down to account funding, if a trader has to make more than 5% a month it typically means they are under funded and are trying to do something with their account that it wasn't meant to do - like pay monthly bills. That's a good way to get your cable and electric turned off in the same month...

It comes down to having realistic goals based on solid data, not hopes based on fluff.

At the end of the day, in twenty years of being in and around the markets I've never seen anything to indicate that average trader will ever make any money, and the average good traders will make much more than 12 to 18%...

That will raise some eyebrows, but its all context. What someone did six months ago or a year ago or two years ago doesn't trump the five, ten and twenty year averages. It just doesn't. A lot of systems exhibit momentary efficiency only to fall apart quickly after a period of time (2 to 3 years). It's not a mistake that most hedge funds want to see three years of returns with a well funded account and then drag you through another six months or so of "maybe".

I know people think there is a huge divide between what professional and private traders do, but it's not true. To think that a private trader has some execution edge over a fund just means there is a lack of understanding. Funds, Larger CTA's & CPO's etc, have extremely efficient pools of liquidity to execute into and often have some of the most advanced technology available to reduce latency. Contrast that with a retail platform that often has too pool together orders to get you in and there is no contest.

funds often gain an execution edge simply by the time frame they are trading... when you're going to be in a trade for weeks or months, building a position over hours is much more efficient than trying to jump into a trade on a news release and then get out twenty minutes later. not to mention it dramatically reduces transactional impact...

markets just don't care who you are and they don't forgive you for being a smaller trader, with different goals and funding levels. the money pit is just as happy to take your dollars as the next guys.

10% a month can't happen, not on the average, not for any group of traders. that won't stop people from believing it though. It's the nature of the beast - how could the bucket shops make money if people thought differently?
 
Quote from JoePaterno:

Socratic method ...
You might want to realize we are already aware of this. The problem is how you react to the responses. This is not the Socratic method. The premise of the thread is naive, and you have been belaboring the point like a deer in the headlights.

Blackjack - positive expectancy ...
Blackjack does not have positive expectancy; it has negative. And if quoting blackjack, then you need to include poker. And system players are not necessarily "banned" unless they are using overt or illegal methods (handheld devices for probability, using partners, a dealer who is in on it, etc.). There is nothing illegal about something like a photographic memory or having an idea whether the shoe has so far been heavy or light on Aces, 10s or such.

Thorp and Blackjack ...
With a little forum etiquette, you include a link, rather than obtuse references. Giving the last name only, you will mostly turn up someone named Jim who played football and who had a town in PA named after him.

Practice vs. Science ...
You might be an engineer. but this is gibberish.

1. My concern here is providing false information, especially to the naive. I am a teacher and providing false information is toxic and worthy of an insistent response.

2. Blackjack, played by simple "best practice" rules without card counting is mathematically provable to have a positive expectancy. Adding simple card counting (10s and aces) dramatically improves the expectancy. Adding more sophisticated card counting makes things even better.

Saying that systems players using rules and memory alone are not banned is simply false. Start with the references below, or do a simple internet search.

3. You're right about providing a link. I have made that point to others and should follow the rule myself.

Choose any search engine and provide the keywords "Thorp" and "blackjack" and the material I'm referring to fills the page. Here is some specific material for reference.

Beat the Dealer: A Winning Strategy for the Game of Twenty-One by Edward O. Thorp

Beat the Market: A Scientific Stock Market System by Edward O. Thorp and Sheen T. Kassouf

A good Wikipedia short biography of Edward O. Thorp

5. When I refer to practice vs. science I'm referring to the common syndrome of someone saying something doesn't work in spite of the science. Usually, when you dig into the details, you find that they did not follow the science.

More specifically, when I teach my methods, some student may complain about being unable to reproduce my results. Once we dig into the details we find that they did not follow the rules. Either I failed to convey the importance of a rule or the student thought he/she could wing it. It was faulty practice, not imperfect science.
 
Quote from JoePaterno:

You might be an engineer. but this is gibberish.

Joe Pa is a brilliant coach and manager. You ought to read some of what he has written regarding intelligence.
 
Quote from ProfLogic:

Joe Pa is a brilliant coach and manager. You ought to read some of what he has written regarding intelligence.

I will do that. Thanks for the heads-up. Any particular thread you recommend?

However, when he is factually incorrect, as he has been in this thread, I will still call it out. I expect no less from those who read my posts.
 
Quote from HowardCohodas:

I will do that. Thanks for the heads-up. Any particular thread you recommend?

However, when he is factually incorrect, as he has been in this thread, I will still call it out. I expect no less from those who read my posts.

Howard I was referencing the "real" Joe Pa not the person in this thread that is simply borrowing is name.
Sorry for the confusion.
 
Quote from ProfLogic:

Howard I was referencing the "real" Joe Pa not the person in this thread that is simply borrowing is name.
Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks again for the heads-up. I'm new enough here that I don't have a gauge on many of the participants. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt and believe they are posting with seriousness. I'm sometimes disappointed. Life goes on.
 
Quote from HowardCohodas:

Thanks again for the heads-up. I'm new enough here that I don't have a gauge on many of the participants. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt and believe they are posting with seriousness. I'm sometimes disappointed. Life goes on.

Um, ProfLogic is not a trading professor, but a WhackaMole system seller based on flawed logic. There is a long history of questions dealing with his claims. Perhaps the only thing a character named "Surf" got generally right :D
 
Quote from HowardCohodas:

Thanks again for the heads-up. I'm new enough here that I don't have a gauge on many of the participants. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt and believe they are posting with seriousness. I'm sometimes disappointed. Life goes on.

Yes/no question: you actually believe the two-thirds who think 10% or better per month is consistently doable are correct?
 
Quote from JoePaterno:

Um, ProfLogic is not a trading professor, but a WhackaMole system seller based on flawed logic. There is a long history of questions dealing with his claims. Perhaps the only thing a character named "Surf" got generally right :D

You know Joe (or whatever your name is), I don't sell a thing on this site. I don't make exaggerated claims that I can't back up, I don't make snide unintelligent remarks abouts about people and situations I know nothing about and pulling my pants down isn't a requirement when I talk.

I'm a professional trader (that means I earn a full time living trading) and I develop software (something I do part-time and am good at). I have lots of references. References that are smart enough to test something before they make ignorant comments about stuff they are clueless about.

Put me on your ignore list like I will do to you. I like dealing with ignorant children because they have inquisitive minds, are open to self validation and have room to grow but ignorant know-it-all adults are a waste of my time. You do a complete disservice to your namesake.
 
Quote from trefoil:

Yes/no question: you actually believe the two-thirds who think 10% or better per month is consistently doable are correct?

I can't speak for anyone except for myself. My goal is 10%. My rate as of close of market today is 8.87%. I think 10% is achievable as I am still honing my methods. I've back-tested my methods to assure myself that the mathematics I developed actually performs as expected. I paper traded so that I was not relying on EOD (End Of Day) data. I now live trade. The monthly returns I quoted are real money trades in an account approximately the size suggested by the thread title.
 
Back
Top