Study says Daytrading for a living is virtually impossible.

A study researched one million male human beings and found none of them could have a baby.
The study concluded that human beings are not capable of having babies.
 
bbpp said:
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.
More...

Since we are talking about the study and not my personal opinion:

We use the first year of our dataset, 2012, to identify new retail day traders as follows. We say an individual began to day trade in 2013 if we see no day trading activity from him or her in 2012; analogously, we say an individual began to day trade in 2014 if we see no day trading activity from him or her in 2012 and 2013; and so on. We observe a total of 19,646 individuals beginning to day trade from 2013 to 2015. We do not consider the individuals who began to day trade in 2016 and 2017 (53,246 individuals) since we need to have at least two years of data to evaluate performance.
More...

Seems clear to me.


Can you take your flowery haikus somewhere else. Thanks.
 
El OchoCinco said:
So Brazil speaks for the rest of the world now huh? Fuck Brazil. Also who the @#$% trades the Brazilian futures market??
More...

+1 As a former corporate statistician for a big-3 automaker, I will say

a) wtf

b) non-representative sample; No inference can be made between uncorrelated markets like brazilian futures vs USA NASDAQ/NYSE stock & etf day trading; apples vs oranges non-valid comparison.. plus its non-usa traders.

c) the results would be useful for people day trading brazilian futures though; but not for usa mkts

also there's stats like '90% of all small-biz startups fail in the first 10 years", but folks still try, to their credit
 
Last edited:
speedo said:
Yep, easy to support your hypothesis if you cherry pick your population sample.
More...


I guess they have very little knowledge about daytrading and don't know that NO NEW DAYTRADERS can make consistent money. Only those who had long time experiences have a chance.
 
Last edited:
KCalhoun said:
+1 As a former corporate statistician for a big-3 automaker, I will say

a) wtf

b) non-representative sample; No inference can be made between uncorrelated markets like brazilian futures vs USA NASDAQ/NYSE stock & etf day trading; apples vs oranges non-valid comparison.. plus its non-usa traders.

c) the results would be useful for people day trading brazilian futures though; but not for usa mkts

also there's stats like '90% of all small-biz startups fail in the first 10 years", but folks still try, to their credit
More...


More importantly as a statistician (I have a Master's level in econometrics myself) I am surprised people cannot find the flaws in this study using a specific defined population sample to then extrapolate into an entire population general thesis.

Not sure why this study was even needed to determine newbie retail traders in day trading will fail at a really high rate in one year. Anyone who does not know this and is scammed by a course...well they should not be trading, they are not smart enough.

The study was a waste of money but people just want to get published and don't care about real research methods.

More importantly, day trading success is not a subject that can be adequately researched since one can never include the proper sized pool of actual day traders to make a determination. Even without doing so WE ALL KNOW a small percentage make money because it is really hard to be that dedicated, disciplined and exacting day in and day out. Also, there are better ways to make money anyway and most give up.
 
gaussian said:
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?
More...


Uh what the fuck are you talking about. A study that looks at new retail traders for one year only..to conclude day trading is difficult? Wow, a 12 year old could have determined that.

Also all the bullshit fancy stats you cite are just to justify their detail but their absolute conclusions was Daytraders cannot make money.

Uh NO - NEWBIE RETAIL DAY TRADERS DO NOT MAKE MONEY IN THEIR FIRST YEAR OF TRADING

That is all the data supported.


Did they follow up on all the traders to see how they did in year 2 3 or 4? NO

Did they research day traders that were trading for 1, 2, 5, 10 years to see historical trends for day traders? NO

Did they include professional day traders not counting HFT? NO

What is their conclusion on the traders who lost money who then made money the following years? uh NONE.

So...shit study.
 
The study showed that newbie retail traders become cannon fodder. Uh yeah, how else would markets operate... lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top