95% of traders fail???

[GSCO]

I believe (and I don't know jack).....(I also have no proof), but nevertheless, I believe only 95% of the traders in this market are truly consistent.

Truly consistent in that they only trade their strategy good or bad and don't stress because they are doing what they said they were going to do.

Truly consistent in that they have mastered the psychology part and are consistently profitable in any market.

For the rest of us, (me included), we will forever try to achieve this goal, with fear and greed constantly holding us back. In trying to achieve this we can still be profitable in the meantime.
I myself battle fear and greed everyday and am not in the 'zen like' place mentioned above, but have far surpassed the $100,000 mark. So there is room for us 'pike-ers' to be profitable but we have to keep the greed/fear ("pike-ing") to a minimum.

A little luck doesn't hurt now and then either

Good Trading

 

[NoMoreOptions]

Yes, there should be an association or a union dedicated to real traders, not professional, not amateur, but just real traders like me, you, and maybe a few other ET mates. We pay annual fees and dues. We have certificates. We have license. We have privileges. We have respects. We are proud as real trader. We are the champions rather than dumbjackass losers.

Best Regards,

John

Quote from oddiduro:

I am starting this thread because I wonder more and more if this is true. Did the failures really try? Did they get a market education before they began to trade large sums of money?

It takes a bachelors degree to be considered a "professional" in some fields. In fields where the potential payscale is that of a good trader > 100000K, the requirements are usually a PHD, which is at least 8 years.

If a person come up to you and says that he is a doctor, but has no license to practice, and does not heal you, is he a failed doctor, or is he simply a nut????

Can we truly call someone with an Ameritrade account and some spare time a trader?

So where does this 95% of all traders fail come from? Where is the statistic?

I postulate that actual traders, (as defined by solid knowledge, if not expertise, of price analysis, time analysis, volume analysis, news analysis and market psychology) fail at a rate in the single digits.

Why the double standard??

Regards
Oddi

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from NoMoreOptions:

Yes, there should be an association or a union dedicated to real traders, not professional, not amateur, but just real traders like me, you, and maybe a few other ET mates. We pay annual fees and dues. We have certificates. We have license. We have privileges. We have respects. We are proud as real trader. We are the champions rather than dumbjackass losers.

Best Regards,

John

i wouldn't want to be associated in any way with some of the people that show up on elite. some are just clueless some are truly ignorant and some are downright scary in their ideas and conspiracy theory.

 

[I Missed Boat]

Quote from NoMoreOptions:

Yes, there should be an association or a union dedicated to real traders, not professional, not amateur, but just real traders like me, you, and maybe a few other ET mates. We pay annual fees and dues. We have certificates. We have license. We have privileges. We have respects. We are proud as real trader. We are the champions rather than dumbjackass losers.

Best Regards,

John

Who cares whether you are "respected," especially when respect is measured by being part of some stupid organization. Sounds like some need to be part of some exclusive country club. All that matters is how you trade and whether you can pay the bills.

 

[Mecro]

Quote from NJ1000:

off the topic, but I was just wondering are u still trading with assent and are you profitable? I may be joining a prop shop after I get my bonus in Jan and was just wondering how some people who have been trading for a relatively short time are doing.

I'm doing very good and I am still with them. I''m very consistent which is most important to me.

 

[JT47319]

From "The Futures Game: Who Wins, Who Loses, & Why" and the nominees for Best Loser are... [drumroll]

1) The Blair ("Witch") - Stewart Study
8922 grain futures traders from 1924 to 1932. 75% were losers with Avg net loss of $1812 per trader and the winners' with Avg net profit of $945 per trader.

2) The Hieronymus ("Bosch") Study
462 accounts in 1969. 65% were losers with Avg net loss of $3783 per trader and the winners' with Avg net profit $2819 per trader.

3) The ("Norman") Rockwell Study
Over a period of 18 years from 1947, small speculators lost 11 out of 18 years, grossing -$3.5 Million as a group. And only two of those years accounted for the vast majority of all profits.

4) The Ross ("Well") Study
Out of 2637 customers, the losers' net loss was more than double that of the winners, grossing -$2.6 Million as a group in 1970-71 (and that's not even including commission which was $8 Million).

The envelope please... and the Best Loser is...

 

[optgamvol]

JT47319,

I need to congratulate you. For sure you belong to one of the VERY few users on ET who read well-researched and edited trading literature.

Another book that might interest you is: Winner Take ALL by Gallacher. Don't get me wrong. The author's intention is not against trading but he critically deals with all those charlatans in the technical trading camps. And he clearly points out the utmost importance of probabilities and statistics because he RIGHTLY recognizes the (almost) random walk of futures prices, which (my guess) 95% of guys in this board deny because it would otherwise contradict their trading style and systems. And of course I will be criticized for those remarks because most will claim that those system they use make them lots of money. The question, raised through all ages, remains then again: Who does all this money come from that you guys claim you make. Lots of people claim proficiency only because they can do a bit of programming, read some technical trading books, and now spend hundreds of hours to optimize some system which stops working after at most 60 days of usage. The truth is that they have not measured their own performance (not theoretical but real yield of return of their own trading) or used those systems over a long period (5 years min.), mostly because they are not around that long or because they would otherwise start wining about their meager performance.

Reading books like Market Wizards can build you up emotionally but most people fail to see that those guys are not magicians nor extraordinary intelligent people. Guys in ET and elsewhere fail to see that those guys described in Market Wizard are the ones who won and thousand/tens of thousands (not mentioned anywhere) lost.

In the end it is a game of probabilities, spiced with proper money management and control of your emotions. (at least short term trading; fundamental analysis added for the longer term trading). Anyone not recognizing random walks denies the nonexistence of any single working system in financial history. And why should anyone here in ET (me included) be the supersmart guy to come up with the holy grail?

For all who want to start being honest to themselves and their trading habits: Get a copy of WINNER TAKE ALL by Galacher. Its a brutally honest book and eye-opener on the futures industry (and reflects on stocks and options as well). I am in no way connected to the author nor promoting this book (I am getting tired to always mention this only because I recommend a book or broker).

If you laugh at me now then keep laughing cause I am the last to laugh for sure. You ask why Goldman, Hedgefunds and all other big names make that much money which they report quarterly? Because they take it away from the small trader. That is a fact and those interested can PM me for a reference to excellent studies undertaken in the past. The fact is that small traders are the big time losers all over in history. Its >90% losing probability over time. Sure, some people say: I dont care about the %. That is correct. But they should also admit to themselves that a bit education and a bit of experience does not make it work!!! It nees LOTS OF education and LOTS of experience and LOTS of emotional control.

 

[Baruch]

Where can we buy the book?

 

[optgamvol]

as a SENIOR MEMBER (whatever that means except that you spent lots of time posting here on ET) you could start trying Amazon.com. I have no idea why you believe every single time that I am trying to sell something or promoting something. In other threads you thought I promote certain brokers, then you thought I promoted other books. Well, if I did all this I would be quite busy and had no time responding to your posts. Believe it or not, there are people who do their research and read a lot. I believe to belong to them. Hope you do, too......

Happy Holidays and hope you got a chance to read that book that I recommended. You won't regret, I am sure!!!

 

[OddTrader]

Q

....of academic scepticism culminating in a belief in the efficient markets or random walk hypothesis. As evidence has increased that markets are less efficient than was originally believed academics have only recently begun to make serious attempts to study the assumptions behind technical analysis [13, 14]. Lo and McKinley [13] state that financial markets are predictable but rather than this being a symptom of inefficiency as is commonly believed they see predictability as the oil that lubricates the gears of capitalism .

--- A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street (A. W. LO AND A. C. MACKINLAY)

http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/context/1183419/0

UQ


Q

Nobody would deny that individual participants operate with biased views; but the prevailing wisdom holds that the participants' bias can be dismissed as temporary aberrations, so called random walks. That is the point on which I disagree.

--- The Alchemy of Finance (George Soros), Preface p.2

UQ

Besides it appears Jack Schwager (New Market Wizards) would not find academicians' "random walks" from many outstanding professional traders he interviewed.