Richard Dennis theory that anyone can learn to trade is flawed

[MattZ]

To be a successful turtle trader i think they would have needed the following traits:

1. Passion for trading
2. At least average intelligence.
3. Compatible with his long term technical based trend following approach
4. No negative personality traits like high Neuroticism or other psychological demons that negatively effect trading discipline.

I think they screened for 1 and 2 and possibly 3 and 4. Although 3 and 4 can best be determined on the job. Hence the firings.

Dennis style was long term technical based trend following.

This is not the most compatible trading style for everyone who wants to be a trader.

Assuming a person has a passion for trading and has at least average intelligence they can probably be a profitable trader if they find the right trading stye for themselves and then develop the discipline and self awareness to actually trade it.

But still there will be a percentage who even with passion and smarts can never trade profitably due to personality traits like very high Neuroticism.

If I had to add one word for those who are successful in trading is "methodical." And in fact, it is something I would add to anyone who succeeded in business. They review things slowly, are not impulsive, and don't have this "fanaticism" associated with amateurs all over the place when it comes to approaching challenges.

I often ask myself when I talk to successful traders if they are passionate about trading. Maybe internally, they could feel differently, but externally I could say that in my opinion, they do not show passion for trading at all. It's just a business for them with checks and balances.

Quite often, I see a thread that starts with something like, "I have been reviewing day trading, and decided this is what I want to do. I have read 20 books. What is the best software, platform, broker"Everything has to start with a spark of excitement, but the methodical part has to kick in right away with a question: What does it take? That could potentially lead to the right path of exploring risk management, psychology challenges, and choice of method for analyzing trades.

Could you take a bunch of strangers and teach them trading? As the OP said, there must be more to the story.

 

[S-Trader]

The original debate between Dennis and Eckhardt was whether great traders are made or born. Per Curtis Faith: "Dennis believed he could transform almost anyone into a winning trader; Eckhardt believed it was a matter of nature, not nurture." ("Way of the Turtle," 2007)

So: (1) It was not just about being able to teach someone to trade, but rather, to teach someone to trade *successfully*; and (2) Pre-selection of candidates was acceptable to Eckhardt, because the focus was more about whether great traders are inherently "gifted" in some way that cannot be taught.

If winning traders *must* have a special "gift" to be successful, then you could pre-select a dozen or so candidates based on qualities such as intelligence, psychological traits, etc., and you still wouldn't reasonably expect the majority of them to be successful -- i.e., that so many of them were "gifted."

If you were having a similar debate about say, whether "great NFL QBs are born or can be made," then you wouldn't reasonably require that the bet be based on a purely random sample of the overall population -- a 90 year-old grandmother, someone who's 5'-2" tall, etc. You'd likely even allow candidates to be pre-selected from a pool of say, minimum 1st-string high school or (even) college QBs.

So while Faith stated that the debate applied to "almost anyone," I think both Dennis and Eckhardt had reasonable expectations for qualifying that, and didn't mean that literally.

 

[panzerman]

The original debate between Dennis and Eckhardt was whether great traders are made or born. Per Curtis Faith: "Dennis believed he could transform almost anyone into a winning trader; Eckhardt believed it was a matter of nature, not nurture." ("Way of the Turtle," 2007)

So: (1) It was not just about being able to teach someone to trade, but rather, to teach someone to trade *successfully*; and (2) Pre-selection of candidates was acceptable to Eckhardt, because the focus was more about whether great traders are inherently "gifted" in some way that cannot be taught.

If winning traders *must* have a special "gift" to be successful, then you could pre-select a dozen or so candidates based on qualities such as intelligence, psychological traits, etc., and you still wouldn't reasonably expect the majority of them to be successful -- i.e., that so many of them were "gifted."

If you were having a similar debate about say, whether "great NFL QBs are born or can be made," then you wouldn't reasonably require that the bet be based on a purely random sample of the overall population -- a 90 year-old grandmother, someone who's 5'-2" tall, etc. You'd likely even allow candidates to be pre-selected from a pool of say, minimum 1st-string high school or (even) college QBs.

So while Faith stated that the debate applied to "almost anyone," I think both Dennis and Eckhardt had reasonable expectations for qualifying that, and didn't mean that literally.

If not using a random sample of the population, then you could bias your selection for any given set of tasks. Not very smart of Eckhardt to allow such a bias.

 

[S-Trader]

If not using a random sample of the population, then you could bias your selection for any given set of tasks. Not very smart of Eckhardt to allow such a bias.

They were apparently good friends, so my assumption is that this was more of a good-natured bet between two very successful, wealthy traders with big egos and competitive natures -- not like the sorta spiteful stuff we see in these forums on occasion, lol, where rigorous rules might apply.

Again, I don't think the argument was literally that *anyone* could be taught to trade successfully on the scale of Dennis, but rather, that it took special gifts that can't be taught to even otherwise well-qualified individuals. And I suspect that Eckhardt was so confident Dennis would lose regardless, that he was willing to allow him certain edges.

 

[Pekelo]

There was a similar experience in the British trading TV series, I think it had 2 seasons? The result was negative...

Or we could just ask TST how many % ends up making money after passing their education course. It would be way more random sample than Dennis' students.

 

[murray t turtle]

First of all he screens the group of applicant asking certain questions to find the batch with the most natural aptitude for trading. Then later, when he taught his methods of trading the ones who did not follow his rules were axed.

Therefore he was not successful in his claim that ANYONE can be taught trading and be successful.
What he did was managing to pick the most talented people in a random group and the ones that did not follow his rules and likely to fail in the future were kicked out.

%%
Axed?? You mean ax like a market maker or axed like a commercial logger??LOL
Excuse me/ what is random about an ad[Turtle Trader Position] in WSJ??Part of a plan/non random.
And are you going to quarrel with his trading advice ''when you are getting beat up in the markets/get your head out of the mixer''?????
My turtle nickname is a childhood deal/not really about Chicago.
Enjoyed his interviews; but I never did really believe his negative comments on stock trends. He may have meant most stock trends are not as good as silver trends...……..........…….