Study says Daytrading for a living is virtually impossible.

[El OchoCinco]

I just did a 3-second study from my computer while having lunch. Results are as follows:

"After reviewing imaginary data in my head, I concluded that most retail traders who attempt to day trade futures for the first time will lose money"


There I achieved the same logical conclusion that these fucktards reached after how many months and $$$ studying trading records haha.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Here is the study conclusion:

"We show that it is virtually impossible for an individual to day trade for a living, contrary to what course providers claim."

WAIIIIIIIIT...the study did not research day traders.....it researched NEW RETAIL DAY TRADERS and every year removed from the study anyone who had previously day traded limiting the study group to only NE W RETAIL DAY TRADERS.

Therefore the conclusion stated by the study is factually incorrect, wrong and misleading based on the actual data they reviewed. Extrapolating a generalized conclusion based on specific targeted research is introducing bias into a study as well as demonstrating absolutely shitty research methods. The authors should be embarrassed as well as anyone who cites this in the same manner as the authors.

 

[speedo]

They absolutely performed this study properly, controlled mostly properly, and even discussed where the study could be improved. RTFA next time.

Neither of you understand statistical significance. Go back to university and take an introductory statistics for scientists course. Until then your hot takes are meaningless until you present contrary data. I'm waiting with bated breath for your study. Another case of "internet shit-talker and alleged successful trader knows more about economic studies than a PhD in economics".

I've taken a number of statistics courses through graduate leval and have designed and conduced my share of hypothetical studies. Read El Ocho Cinco's post...slowly.

 

[gaussian]

I just debunked the article....maybe you should read it

Your hot take isn't debunking it. If you debunked it, Rachael Maddow is a scholar of the highest order. Your "they used shit evidence" is baseless and indicates your lack of actual sophistication when it comes to reading academic papers. Pro tip: you read more than the abstract.

You didn't debunk this:

We compute the total net prot6 obtained by each one of the 19,646 new day traders. Considering those who day traded for only one day (1,111 individuals), 29.8% obtained positive net prot. Considering those who day traded for 2 to 50 days (9,978), 51 to 100 days (3,100), 101 to 200 days (2,738), 201 to 300 days (1,168), and more than 300 days (1,551), 15.5%, 8.9%, 6.8%, 5.4%, and 3.0% obtained positive net prot, respectively

They even go on to discuss the monotonically decreasing property of traders and related it back to roulette, which is absolutely and without question true. In the foot notes of page (3) they offer a cite to a previous source in this area.

To conrm that day traders do not learn with experience, we run panel regressions with all 1,551 individuals who day traded for more than 300 days. In the regressions, the dependent variable is the prot of each trading day, and the explanatory variables are a sequential number for the trading day of each day trader (1, 2, . . . ) along with day trader xed-eects.

You didn't debunk this either. Do you even know what a panel regression is? Do you disagree with their explanatory variables?

It may be important to control the learning regressions of Table 1 for the activity of algorithms and high-frequency traders (HFTs). Institutions have been investing heavily in technology to prot from high-frequency trading, what may negatively aect individual day traders' performance. Since the activity of HFTs increases during our sample period, this might produce a downward bias in the estimate of the learning parameter.

You didn't debunk their proper control of HFT and algorithm influence in order to shake out the "actual day-trade effect" - which they did properly.

You didn't comment on section (2.1), nor did you comment on their remarks section.


Do you have a problem with their particular sources? I went through them and didn't see any problems for a paper of this caliber.

I get you're a troll but I don't want people to think you actually know what you're doing.

I've taken a number of statistics courses through graduate leval and have designed and conduced my share of hypothetical studies. Read El Ocho Cinco's post...slowly.

Sure you have, bud. How much @El Ocho Cinco pay you to shill for him?

 

[monet]

it's not a matter of persistence... like will you be able to fly by flapping your arms? if you practice long enough lol.

Sticking at something is persisting. Quitting after 300 days is not persisting, relatively compared to the time profitable traders have put it.

You can persist at something without it being futile as with your example.

Persisting can be becoming better at something by learning from mistakes and improving.

It is a matter of persistence.

 

[speedo]

Your hot take isn't debunking it. If you debunked it, Rachael Maddow is a scholar of the highest order. Your "they used shit evidence" is baseless and indicates your lack of actual sophistication when it comes to reading academic papers. Pro tip: you read more than the abstract.

You didn't debunk this:



They even go on to discuss the monotonically decreasing property of traders and related it back to roulette, which is absolutely and without question true. In the foot notes of page (3) they offer a cite to a previous source in this area.



You didn't debunk this either. Do you even know what a panel regression is? Do you disagree with their explanatory variables?



You didn't debunk their proper control of HFT and algorithm influence in order to shake out the "actual day-trade effect" - which they did properly.

You didn't comment on section (2.1), nor did you comment on their remarks section.


Do you have a problem with their particular sources? I went through them and didn't see any problems for a paper of this caliber.

I get you're a troll but I don't want people to think you actually know what you're doing.



Sure you have, bud. How much @El Ocho Cinco pay you to shill for him?

The same amount you got paid to pimp this "study".

 

[trader99]

I think the study is totally valid and not just for Brazilian markets. Probably U.S. markets too.

Having said that, I think traders who persisted and try on their 3rd,4th, 5th, or 10th time and improving each and every time will show abnormally consistent profits. But those are again a very small percentage of the retail daytrading universe. Perhaps, 0.75%.

How many make a good living around $150K-$200K+? Probably .1% to .25% of the total universe. Basically the top 1% of 1%.

There are much easier ways to make 6 figures income. However, some of the top 1% of 1% make 7 figures easily...

 

[bbpp]

Your hot take isn't debunking it. If you debunked it, Rachael Maddow is a scholar of the highest order. Your "they used shit evidence" is baseless and indicates your lack of actual sophistication when it comes to reading academic papers. Pro tip: you read more than the abstract.

You didn't debunk this:



They even go on to discuss the monotonically decreasing property of traders and related it back to roulette, which is absolutely and without question true. In the foot notes of page (3) they offer a cite to a previous source in this area.



You didn't debunk this either. Do you even know what a panel regression is? Do you disagree with their explanatory variables?



You didn't debunk their proper control of HFT and algorithm influence in order to shake out the "actual day-trade effect" - which they did properly.

You didn't comment on section (2.1), nor did you comment on their remarks section.


Do you have a problem with their particular sources? I went through them and didn't see any problems for a paper of this caliber.

I get you're a troll but I don't want people to think you actually know what you're doing.



Sure you have, bud. How much @El Ocho Cinco pay you to shill for him?

New daytraders,new daytraders,new daytraders,new daytraders,new daytraders!!!
Do you really understand what it means?
I bet you don't have a clue.

 

[speedo]

I think the study is totally valid and not just for Brazilian markets. Probably U.S. markets too.

Having said that, I think traders who persisted and try on their 3rd,4th, 5th, or 10th time and improving each and every time will show abnormally consistent profits. But those are again a very small percentage of the retail daytrading universe. Perhaps, 0.75%.

How many make a good living around $150K-$200K+? Probably .25% of the total universe.

You appear to be adept at pulling numbers out of your ass so I can understand why you would consider this study to have relevant validity.

 

[dozu888]

Sticking at something is persisting. Quitting after 300 days is not persisting, relatively compared to the time profitable traders have put it.

You can persist at something without it being futile as with your example.

Persisting can be becoming better at something by learning from mistakes and improving.

It is a matter of persistence.

arguably - people quitting after 300 days are smart enough to realize that there are better games to play than stinking day trading lol.... the worst game in town.