If so many people are unsuccessful traders...

[gnome]

Quote from Jaime:

This is a proven strategy... its called The Constanza Trade Theory!

Righto! What's needed is the "Opposite George" approach.

 

[gnome]

Trading success requires:

1. Knowledge of "what usually works"

2. Discipline/courage to take proper risks

3. Discipline to exercise reasonable stops

4. Pay attention

The worse you are about any/all of the above, the greater your probability of failure.

 

[Businessman]

You also need to pocket and the spread and any commission the losing trader is paying.

In the UK, the spread betting companies effectively do this.

The few winners are hedged, the losers are just left to get on with it and are effectively paper trading with real money and a wide spread and delayed executions.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from CFerret:

IMHO people fail not because they all follow similar "wrong" methods. Just the opposite - it's because most of wannabe-traders DO NOT follow exact rules given by methods they have chosen.

This is the only answer needed for the OP's question.

It is true that most beginners enter the markets without an edge, without fully understanding their approach or even having a codified approach. Nevertheless, their losses have as much to do with their emotions as where they enter and exit.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Quote from IronFist:

Wouldn't a viable strategy just be to do the opposite of what you normally would? If you're long, and you lose money, you should've been short, and vice versa. If over time you are consistently losing money, wouldn't it stand to reason that the opposite position would me making money?

No. Ridiculous. The same money management skills would be used and the individual would still lose. Unbelievable.

 

[OddTrader]

Quote from IronFist:

Wouldn't a viable strategy just be to do the opposite of what you normally would? If you're long, and you lose money, you should've been short, and vice versa. If over time you are consistently losing money, wouldn't it stand to reason that the opposite position would me making money?

Close enough!

 

[OddTrader]

Quote from Hook N. Sinker:

I find stopping losses gives results that I do not expect.

I find without stopping losses gives results that I do not expect.

 

[Bearbelly]

Quote from IronFist:

Wouldn't a viable strategy just be to do the opposite of what you normally would? If you're long, and you lose money, you should've been short, and vice versa. If over time you are consistently losing money, wouldn't it stand to reason that the opposite position would me making money?

Say your a TA trader and you keep losing money by following the TIs as they were designed. Can't you do the opposite? MACD goes up, you go short, profit!

I mean excluding commissions and stuff. I guess the only way this strategy wouldn't work is if every time you placed a trade, the stock got into these little +/- 1 cent channels so whenever you sold, you lost money (unless you're trading such huge lots that +1 cent is actually profitable for you).

If I had my druthers I would run a brokerage and take the other side of all trades. I would kick winning traders out.

 

[mokwit]

Quote from Bearbelly:

If I had my druthers I would run a brokerage and take the other side of all trades. I would kick winning traders out.

Already done. It's called retail Forex

 

[asap]

Quote from mokwit:

Already done. It's called retail Forex

right in the money.