New Market Wizards Book

[virtusa]

You can get this results just by luck with a sample big enough.

OK show us you can do it.

 

[virtusa]

I can also set up 50 accounts, fund them with $5K each, pick the best performance and claim that i'm the best trader.

I am sure you cannot. Because if you could you would do it. 50 accounts at $5000 equals $250,000 investment. Take the one account that made millions and forget the 49 other accounts. You would be rich.
You are not rich, you are stupid.

 

[guowei58]

I am sure you cannot. Because if you could you would do it. 50 accounts at $5000 equals $250,000 investment. Thake the one account that made millions and forget the 49 other accounts. You would be rich.
You are not rich, you are stupid.[/QUOTE

haha why the animosity?

 

[virtusa]

haha why the animosity?

Because you tell a lot of nonsense based on your imagination (or stupidity?) without any hard proof.

 

[JCDST1979]

The book is only for people who actually want to read it and make own judgements. Not for smart asses who judge books by their covers and lecture everyone what’s in the books without reading them.

You can find 16384 of the dumbest people on earth with $1000 dollar each one. Put then to play head or tails betting all the money they have. At the end, you have 1 trader that turned $1000 into 16 million in one afternoon! And you can go and write a book called Coin Wizards.

 

[virtusa]

You can find 16384 of the dumbest people on earth with $1000 dollar each one. Put then to play head or tails betting all the money they have. At the end, you have 1 trader that turned $1000 into 16 million in one afternoon! And you can go and write a book called Coin Wizards.

I watched your profile and now understand you.
"I'm a beginner options trader looking to take advantage of randomness and luck. "

ROFLMAO

 

[guowei58]

Because you tell a lot of nonsense based on your imagination (or stupidity?) without any hard proof.

I love the irony. maybe you're right. without any hard proof how can you really be sure, right?
u a smart kid

 

[Laissez Faire]

You can get this results just by luck with a sample big enough.

I'm sure there are traders who simply got lucky. Just like there are traders who happen to master a specific market condition/period, but fail in a later period. For example a low volatility up trend versus a highly volatile range bound market.

But there is no doubt that there are market participants whose results and long-term track record can't be explained by luck alone.

Here's an excerpt from the interview with Edward Thorp in one of Schwager's books:

Thorp's original fund, Princeton Newport Partners, ran for 19 years and had an average annualized compounded gross return of 19.1 percent (15.1 percent after fees).

It is not return, but rather the extraordinary consistency of return, that sets Thorp apart.

Princeton Newport Partners compiled a track record of 227 winning months and only 3 losing months (all under 1 percent) - an extraordinary 98.7 winning percentage.

Given the assumption that the average win and loss are equal (not true as Thorp's average win was significantly higher), the probability of any single trader achieving 227 winning months out of 230 is equivalent to the probability of getting 227 or more heads in 230 coin tosses, which is approximately equal to an infinitesimally small 1 out of 10^63.

Even if we assumed 1 billion traders, which is a deliberate exaggeration, the odds of getting at least one track record equivalent to or better than Thorp's would still be less than 1 out of 10^62.

Quite a few of the Market Wizards actually struggled for years before they had their break. Is it likely that they had bad luck for a long time and then simply got lucky? I think not.

Another Market Wizard, Gil Blake, actually believed the market to be random and being an academic he subscribed to the EMH. But then he discovered that a specific behavior in mutual funds had about an 80 % odds of next day being positive. Not quite consistent with what he thought and had been told by professors to be true.

 

[SteveM]

You can find 16384 of the dumbest people on earth with $1000 dollar each one. Put then to play head or tails betting all the money they have. At the end, you have 1 trader that turned $1000 into 16 million in one afternoon! And you can go and write a book called Coin Wizards.

Respectfully, I must say I disagree with this type of thinking.

Many of the traders profiled in the first Market Wizards book were hired by Commodities Corporation to trade, and that is where they accumulated their stellar track records.

If I ran a firm that made it's money by professional gambling, and then hired people to gamble for my firm, and then those gamblers went out and had 10 amazingly successful years, is that all random luck? I think not.

If a baseball owner signs a player to hit baseballs, and that player winds up being one of the best hitters on earth, that to me is not random.

 

[ZBZB]

Respectfully, I must say I disagree with this type of thinking.

Many of the traders profiled in the first Market Wizards book were hired by Commodities Corporation to trade, and that is where they accumulated their stellar track records.

If I ran a firm that made it's money by professional gambling, and then hired people to gamble for my firm, and then those gamblers went out and had 10 amazingly successful years, is that all random luck? I think not.

If a baseball owner signs a player to hit baseballs, and that player winds up being one of the best hitters on earth, that to me is not random.

How do you do it for your own account without being employed to do it?