Is Trading Itself a Bad Trade? I Analyzed the Industry- Prove Me Wrong
- Thread starter cityboy12
- Start date
LMFAO HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA lol that is funny
LMFAO hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahhaahhahahah hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Point taken. Sure math can be used especially in the area of statistics...etc but it can NEVER provide a precise model..stats..markets evolve...nothing is certain..Renaissance will go the way of all such models. To the dust bin. Yes trades need to be structured and math is one way to help in this but still all things are reduced to probability (or better said possibility), risk and reward and their dynamic interaction. Just look at the math based HTF’s that went belly up in recent years.
You got HTF’s fighting HTF’s. They care less about our potatoe chip money or running our stops LOL.
AND the average trader does not, and will not, have the resources to do what Renaissance does (which is probably a point for Cityboy argument) so to argue to use math in trading in such ways and to do so by using Renaissance as an example is well “a horse of a different color” much like price drivers..
The average trader has price action (with all it’s dynamics...spread...0HLC...compared to things to things to left on a chart....)..volume....footprints...and inertia. These are what we have to structure our trades.
When Renaissance is long gone ...when we traders are long gone...the markets will still be around and still be uncertain and people will still be searching for the grail.
When quants are in the dust bin of history their efforts will one day be looked upon with amusement.
For the average trader...learning the many senarios and interactions of PA...Volume (if you would like but vol cannot be 100% trusted) ...footprints...inertia ...and extrapolations are skills that can last them until they have gone to the dust bin themselves.
ROFLMA
Because Destriero has a HUGE ego and is ultra sensitive if he thinks that ego can get hurt.
Watch his picture, that's from years ago. Putting a picture of how he looks now would hurt his ego again.
I will come back on the rest he is posting, trading now.
You would better check that statement as you are showing how stupid you are. The $0.00 is OPEN trade equity. That's always zero for a daytrader as I have no open positions at night. But you are probably too stupid to understand that. That's the kind of supporters Destriero wants as they don't think.
Apparently even Destriero cannot read statements. LOL.
I would say that the best way would be to get employed in the industry, talk to people, assess companies., learn it from the inside out. I did this, rather than blow all my money as a new day trader. A side benefit is that you get paid to do it and can make friends and network into opportunities.
Approach hedge funds or asset managers (a drawback is that you may need an elite degree or at least a CFA certification but may be able to get in based on networking or sales ability to compensate for a lack of this- or go back to school) and ask for a role (even in back office). Offer to work in sales, or to work your way up. You will learn more about how real professional investors work that way than any other. You would be surprised how many small hedge funds or asset managers exist. You will also be surprised how different it is to the BS you will read/ get sold for the retail investors. I saw a really truly stupendously dumb seminar once for retail investors ...the secret, apparently, was support and resistance levels and 'letting trades run'. It cost £10k and some 30 people actually paid up (now that was a good risk-free trade - £300k gross profit). No professional money manager works that way. This strategy usually works in a (expensive to live in) financial 'node' like London, New York or Connecticut so you may have to move.
Side note: One of the posters here had a $7500 training package. That would pay for a CFA and CAIA along with all the study material. You could always get work as a low-level analyst.
Also, while you do this...you can test your ideas with a demo or small account to see things in action as a side venture.
Professional money managers take all shapes and sizes. Some are 'human only' with small or large teams, others are quant based and high in technology. Some are high frequency, others are event driven or have longer time frames. They also trade different asset classes equities, ETFs, commodities, derivatives etc.
Another point, test your IQ. It by no means the only factor but a contributing one. Mine is just under 140 (which puts me in the top 1-2% of the population). No amount of hard work can make you smarter - it is permanent. I am not as smart as a lot of people in finance and know my limits.
You will find many of the top fund managers are genuinely smart (often, but not always, verified by academic degrees or certifications). If you were not it would be like going onto a basketball field with Michael Jordan in his prime at 5 ft 2inches tall. Theoretically possible but highly unlikely. At the highest level, of course. There are always mediocre companies but they rarely shine.
Last edited:
Are you sure you can read your own statements? Because you clearly cannot read mine correctly. That's bad for your ego.