Are you a successful trader?

[tanp21]

Did you know that 90% of statistics are made up on the spot?

 

[volente_00]

Quote from trader28:

Well historically only 5 to 10% make any money so someone is fibbing

Do you have scientific evidence to prove this claim ?

 

[trader28]

Quote from volente_00:

Do you have scientific evidence to prove this claim ?

Man get over the obsession with me... so you were wrong... traders learn to live with that or die... stop acting like a 5 year old because you embarrassed yourself with a ridiculous call

 

[granville]

Really?? 10% + per month??

 

[alraaayeq]

Quote from granville:

Really?? 10% + per month??

Yes, in some STOCK markets we made this growth, even bank funds did that.

see
http://www.tadawul.com.sa/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_49L/.cmd/ad/.c/6_1_9R/.ce/7_1_6L8/.p/5_1_6EV?MutualFundMangersDrop=006+++&SelectedTab=1
the Saudi Market Stocks official wWeb site

 

[gbos]

I have bought stocks in the past that made me 400% in a few months but to claim that someone can make 10% a month on his whole portfolio consistently is like claiming you are the son of god.

Unless of course my poor English prevented me from understanding the poll.

 

[volente_00]

Quote from gbos:

I have bought stocks in the past that made me 400% in a few months but to claim that someone can make 10% a month on his whole portfolio consistently is like claiming you are the son of god.

Unless of course my poor English prevented me from understanding the poll.

Do not open that can of worms with all of the MM running around here.

 

[malaka56]

I hate the 95% loser statistic that gets thrown around. there is no other base to figure out what that means. no timeframe, no number of trades, nothing. Also, I would think the 95% "law" would apply to traders in general, and yes, that even means your aunt susie who places a few trades during the late 1990s.

 

[trader28]

Quote from malaka56:

I hate the 95% loser statistic that gets thrown around. there is no other base to figure out what that means. no timeframe, no number of trades, nothing. Also, I would think the 95% "law" would apply to traders in general, and yes, that even means your aunt susie who places a few trades during the late 1990s.

Enough brilliant traders have said it who have no investment in the stat itself

 

[FredBloggs]

Quote from malaka56:

I hate the 95% loser statistic that gets thrown around. there is no other base to figure out what that means. no timeframe, no number of trades, nothing. Also, I would think the 95% "law" would apply to traders in general, and yes, that even means your aunt susie who places a few trades during the late 1990s.

dont know where you get 95% from, but....

there was a poll carried out by brokers, and the findings suggested that 80-90% (cant remember which) of accounts either blew up or threw in the towel after 6-9 months.

this is all customers. no distinction between time frame, method etc. besides, such criteria is pointless anyhow. the reasons for failure are 3 fold: not understanding risk, not understanding or following the approach/plan/method, or not understanding the impacts of diversification or hedging (where appropriate). NONE of these have anything to do with the time frame (investment or day trading) or any specific method.


i also see it at pointless though. as joe ross once said, statistics only predict. it is up to YOU whether you succeed or fail.

as a side note however, i think if we read all the time that 80% fail etc, then this programmes our subconscious to fail if we are not careful. perhaps a reason why some internet sites can do more harm than good?