Is active trading a viable job for an individual?

[jinxu]

You do NOT have to be a genius to be making money in trading. LOL Warren Buffet, George Soros, Jesse Livermore, all successful traders but I do not consider them geniuses. Steve Hawkins, John Nash, these are geniuses but they don't trade. So it just shows that you have to be in a different framework of mind when it comes to trading.

You really can't make that claim unless you had the chance to see their IQ scores first hand. Some genius aren't so obvious. Some of them like to have a "dumb" down outward appearance.

It's not that they are trying to be humble. But "dumbing" down can be a distress/relaxation mechanism to slow an "overactive" brain down. Me personally, I prefer using alcohol. Hehe.

 

[JSOP]

You really can't make that claim unless you had the chance to see their IQ scores first hand. Some genius aren't so obvious. Some of them like to have a "dumb" down outward appearance.

It's not that they are trying to be humble. But "dumbing" down can be a distress/relaxation mechanism to slow an "overactive" brain down. Me personally, I prefer using alcohol. Hehe.

I don't consider IQ scores as an accurate measurement of one's intelligence.

 

[jinxu]

I don't consider IQ scores as an accurate measurement of one's intelligence.

Yeah, maybe truth. I read you can "artificially" boost your own IQ score.

 

[Stocktracker]

This link has more of the same,
https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/trading-for-a-living-full-time-only-income.6758/

 

[digitalnomad]

Some genius aren't so obvious. Some of them like to have a "dumb" down outward appearance.

Absolutely. Jim Simons doesn’t look too smart, and doesn’t sound extremely sophisticated, but he’s definitely a lethal weapon. Maybe he just goes “laymen” when he does those interviews.

 

[trader99]

You do NOT have to be a genius to be making money in trading. LOL Warren Buffet, George Soros, Jesse Livermore, all successful traders but I do not consider them geniuses. Steve Hawkins, John Nash, these are geniuses but they don't trade. So it just shows that you have to be in a different framework of mind when it comes to trading. That's all.

I beg to differ. Warren Buffett is an investing genius! I don't know too many people who started out with tens of thousands and become at one point the 2nd richest person in the world! That's a sign of extreme talent and genius in his area of expertise.

Nash and Hawkings are genius with respect to very academic topics.

Genius is domain specific. Not just just confined to academics.

 

[trader99]

Absolutely. Jim Simons doesn’t look too smart, and doesn’t sound extremely sophisticated, but he’s definitely a lethal weapon. Maybe he just goes “laymen” when he does those interviews.

Simons graduated from MIT at 20 and a PhD at 23 from Berkeley! He won the Veblen Prize in math. His math theory is used in super string.

 

[JSOP]

I beg to differ. Warren Buffett is an investing genius! I don't know too many people who started out with tens of thousands and become at one point the 2nd richest person in the world! That's a sign of extreme talent and genius in his area of expertise.

Nash and Hawkings are genius with respect to very academic topics.

Genius is domain specific. Not just just confined to academics.

Warren Buffet is very talented but not a genius. Geniuses are people who are just extremely exceptional and original in their thinking and have reached such an out-of-this-world level of intelligence that people, even intelligent people are just not able to reach; they are like in a different realm altogether. And I agree geniuses are not confined to just academics but what Warren Buffet did would not qualify him as a genius; other people have done what he's done and become quite successfully.

 

[lawrence-lugar]

Geniuses are people who are just extremely exceptional and original in their thinking and have reached such an out-of-this-world level of intelligence that people, even intelligent people are just not able to reach; they are like in a different realm altogether

I'm just curious, by your technical definition of 'genius'...would you consider any trader in history to fit into that category?
Or, is genius in your book basically limited to scientific discoveries and super IQ's? Such as the discovery of the atom and nuclear bomb...and electricity...and telephone...and the best chess player in the world...etc etc

If, for example, a trader is able to generate over 500%+ annually for the past five years...Would that be considered a "genius" in your book? Or just simply a really really 'great' trader.
Let's bump that figure up to 1,000% annually, for the past 10 years...and let's hypothetically say...only .01% or .001% of the population has ever achieved that...would that then technically be called and considered to be "Genius" level?

 

[JSOP]

If, for example, a trader is able to generate over 500%+ annually for the past five years...Would that be considered a "genius" in your book? Or just simply a really really 'great' trader.
Let's bump that up to 1,000% annually, for the past 10 years...and let's hypothetically say...only .01% or .001% of the population has ever achieved that...would that then technically be called and considered to be "Genius" level?

It would depend on how he/she achieved that level of profitability. Just a number indicates nothing. People can achieve that level of profitability throughout numerous means.