How necessary are quantitative skills in order to trade profitably?
- Thread starter c.chugani
- Start date
I never was on university. I broke my education as electrician, because i hated it. I dont categorize myself as a smart guy.
Actually i am really stupid.
But i am an ass off worker. If i want something i do everything do get it.
I always wanted to be my own boss.
Thats why found the way to trading.
I have respect for zdreg, based on past postings etc and did not feel i had to check his figures against your own. Besides a little common sense, experience, knowledge whatever lead me to believe his figures were closer to the reality than your your own.
Anyway a very quick search reveals that secondary school teachers in Georgia make $52k median.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ga.htm#25-0000
Is quantitative ability important to trading?
I didn't post a valid answer.
I don't have an answer.
Premise:
My assertion. " Intelligence, and quantitative skills are not essential to become a good trader and possibly make alot of money.
Inference:
I know some people that that are not good at quantitative skills, but are successful traders,therefore, quantitative skills are not necessary to become a successful trader and make alot of money.
Conclusion:
Successful trading is not contingent upon quantitative skills.
My proof, is that there are successful traders that have posted before this post and said they do not have quantitative skills, but are successful traders and have made alot of money.
I am making an assumption that their post's are truthful and not bullshit.
Now, Zdreg.
You are asserting that my initial post, which included nothing in the form of a logical argument, but what was merely statements, to be obvious nonsense.
Now, just take a moment to re-read what you have written, which I have pasted here.
"it is not an argument but a conclusion when someone posts obvious nonsense. to try discredit my info which is perfectly reasonable is to soothe to your hurt ego."
"whatever actions u usually take to pacify your ego do it quickly."
I'm having trouble understanding what you wrote.
So you have concluded that I posted something obviously nonsense and that because you replied to me in a totally illogical way, that it hurt my ego, and that I should pacify my ego quickly for some reason.
And, you repeated it twice.
Then you wrote:
"a latin phrase sounds good maybe to a very drunk and desperate woman.
keep repeating it."
I just looked for a definition to understand what you were implying about
the ego thing. And this is what I found.
I don't know Latin. So why not cut and paste the word into Google translate.
Argumentum ad nauseam: definition.
A belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the more often it is heard. An "argumentum ad nauseam" is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something.
You are implying that my ego has been hurt, by repeating it over twice now, so then, that would be argumentum ad nauseam, by definition, perhaps.
Next time I'm at a bar I'm going to try to use that as a pick up line, BTW.
Just as long as she has big tits, a pretty face, and decent body, and is drunk, I am confident that I will score, since you're assertion is that Latin words are good for a drunk and desperate woman.
I didn't post a valid answer.
I don't have an answer.
Premise:
My assertion. " Intelligence, and quantitative skills are not essential to become a good trader and possibly make alot of money.
Inference:
I know some people that that are not good at quantitative skills, but are successful traders,therefore, quantitative skills are not necessary to become a successful trader and make alot of money.
Conclusion:
Successful trading is not contingent upon quantitative skills.
My proof, is that there are successful traders that have posted before this post and said they do not have quantitative skills, but are successful traders and have made alot of money.
I am making an assumption that their post's are truthful and not bullshit.
Now, Zdreg.
You are asserting that my initial post, which included nothing in the form of a logical argument, but what was merely statements, to be obvious nonsense.
Now, just take a moment to re-read what you have written, which I have pasted here.
"it is not an argument but a conclusion when someone posts obvious nonsense. to try discredit my info which is perfectly reasonable is to soothe to your hurt ego."
"whatever actions u usually take to pacify your ego do it quickly."
I'm having trouble understanding what you wrote.
So you have concluded that I posted something obviously nonsense and that because you replied to me in a totally illogical way, that it hurt my ego, and that I should pacify my ego quickly for some reason.
And, you repeated it twice.
Then you wrote:
"a latin phrase sounds good maybe to a very drunk and desperate woman.
keep repeating it."
I just looked for a definition to understand what you were implying about
the ego thing. And this is what I found.
I don't know Latin. So why not cut and paste the word into Google translate.
Argumentum ad nauseam: definition.
A belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the more often it is heard. An "argumentum ad nauseam" is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something.
You are implying that my ego has been hurt, by repeating it over twice now, so then, that would be argumentum ad nauseam, by definition, perhaps.
Next time I'm at a bar I'm going to try to use that as a pick up line, BTW.
Just as long as she has big tits, a pretty face, and decent body, and is drunk, I am confident that I will score, since you're assertion is that Latin words are good for a drunk and desperate woman.
Honestly, trading is the ultimate accountability game.
I have seen wandering misfits find their stride and kill in the markets.
I have seen MIT blue bloods get their fucking heads handed to them in a brown paper sack.
Just because you can tie a Windsor Knot and you edited the Harvard campus rag does not mean the markets will bow before you in deference.
The one universal maxim I have for trading strategies and methodologies: Occam's Razor.
I have seen wandering misfits find their stride and kill in the markets.
I have seen MIT blue bloods get their fucking heads handed to them in a brown paper sack.
Just because you can tie a Windsor Knot and you edited the Harvard campus rag does not mean the markets will bow before you in deference.
The one universal maxim I have for trading strategies and methodologies: Occam's Razor.
You posed the wrong question: you should have replaced the word Necessary by the word "Sufficient" to get the right question (however this does not mean the answer would be yes).