Eh? What’s funny??
Is Trading Itself a Bad Trade? I Analyzed the Industry- Prove Me Wrong
- Thread starter cityboy12
- Start date
Eh? What’s funny??
It is in the title of the post.
...is my hypothesis wrong? That, based on my research and experience and also using a trader's mindset/analysis.... is trading itself is a 'bad trade' (and that there are better trades out there with a better risk/reward). With evidence if you you think the opposite.
Regarding mentoring..this is a side issue. Statistically such mentors must exist (a fraction of 1%). However, I have found that the vast majority of such mentors due not allow themselves to be objectively verified despite charging fees. 'Smoke and mirrors' arguments like 'not having enough time' or 'you have to believe in my magic first' are abundant. Would be nice to see a 'real one' from time to time.
As a martial artist myself, an example of my point ...can be found in fake gurus in the world of martial arts. None of them enter into an MMA ring (but, of course, have countless magical powers and excuses outside of it).
...is my hypothesis wrong? That, based on my research and experience and also using a trader's mindset/analysis.... is trading itself is a 'bad trade' (and that there are better trades out there with a better risk/reward). With evidence if you you think the opposite.
Regarding mentoring..this is a side issue. Statistically such mentors must exist (a fraction of 1%). However, I have found that the vast majority of such mentors due not allow themselves to be objectively verified despite charging fees. 'Smoke and mirrors' arguments like 'not having enough time' or 'you have to believe in my magic first' are abundant. Would be nice to see a 'real one' from time to time.
As a martial artist myself, an example of my point ...can be found in fake gurus in the world of martial arts. None of them enter into an MMA ring (but, of course, have countless magical powers and excuses outside of it).
Im not sure i understand your perspective.
There are more than 1% gurus in trading ,teaching acient aztec ishibuku cloud rainbows, because it's possible to be right for a wrong reason. For a period of time.
Like the masters that you linked.
But ,,trading in itself is a bad trade" -
correct only if you're loosing consistantly.
If you're profitable, then that statment is irrational.(?)
You missed the point...I will explain it very clearly and simply for you.
1. Trade one - a fraction of a 1% of chance of success vs 50,000 hours of time, risk capital of $100k and 99.8% of loss of capital (additional risk factors such as regulatory risk, scams and structural change also outlined)
2. Trade two - 95% success rate vs 28,000 hours of time, risk capital $50,000. 99% chance of becoming a millionaire by 50.
Assuming a similar work ethic and diligence...the second trade (medical school in a non-US country) is better than trade one. I can write a whole list of alternative trades but wanted to illustrate a point.
If you were a trader looking at your screens and you took a position on AAPL with a 0.2% chance of success and a downside risk of 50% before your stop kicked in would you not look for other trades with, say a 90% chance of success and 1% downside risk with similar rewards? (Of course, this is not exactly the same as there are different time frames etc..but it illustrates the point).
In other words...'is trading itself a bad trade?'
1. Trade one - a fraction of a 1% of chance of success vs 50,000 hours of time, risk capital of $100k and 99.8% of loss of capital (additional risk factors such as regulatory risk, scams and structural change also outlined)
2. Trade two - 95% success rate vs 28,000 hours of time, risk capital $50,000. 99% chance of becoming a millionaire by 50.
Assuming a similar work ethic and diligence...the second trade (medical school in a non-US country) is better than trade one. I can write a whole list of alternative trades but wanted to illustrate a point.
If you were a trader looking at your screens and you took a position on AAPL with a 0.2% chance of success and a downside risk of 50% before your stop kicked in would you not look for other trades with, say a 90% chance of success and 1% downside risk with similar rewards? (Of course, this is not exactly the same as there are different time frames etc..but it illustrates the point).
In other words...'is trading itself a bad trade?'
Last edited:
Yes it is. Trading itself is a bad trade and a fools game unless you have some sort of insiders advantage life the HFT traders or Axel off Billions.
Axel and his like still inhabit the canyons of finance.
The sort of trading discussed and practiced on retail forums serves only to enrich brokers, market makers and the owners of forums.
Axel and his like still inhabit the canyons of finance.
The sort of trading discussed and practiced on retail forums serves only to enrich brokers, market makers and the owners of forums.
Unless you name is Bobby Axelrod don't bother to trade. The real game for those who do not wish to end up in jail is managing a low volatility Conservative stock fund and building up AUM.
Never forget survivorship bias. Long term survival has a great deal to do with luck. Most hedge funds crash and burn when their luck runs out but by that time the asset gatherers who run them have made a vast fortune out of fees.
Thank you Zenostiffler.
That's what my in-depth analysis proved (among other things)...
1...sales as the arbitrage and build AUM is a fantastic model. Unlimited upside, low risk (except regulatory risk).
2. Another one is getting free risk-free money from the State (taxpayers and printing press) and lending it out to people at interest (... the banks did after the financial crisis)
I found a few such 'trades' but the conventional trading one was not one of them.
Also, to become Bobby Axelrod...you have to go deep in the canyons of finance. I think a few have been there and made it out (but the majority are in some prison scared to pick up the soap in the showers).
That's what my in-depth analysis proved (among other things)...
1...sales as the arbitrage and build AUM is a fantastic model. Unlimited upside, low risk (except regulatory risk).
2. Another one is getting free risk-free money from the State (taxpayers and printing press) and lending it out to people at interest (... the banks did after the financial crisis)
I found a few such 'trades' but the conventional trading one was not one of them.
Also, to become Bobby Axelrod...you have to go deep in the canyons of finance. I think a few have been there and made it out (but the majority are in some prison scared to pick up the soap in the showers).
Well he hasn't been going hungry! Here he is in fullup "Palm Beach Pastels!" Go Surfeur! 
Last edited: