Study says Daytrading for a living is virtually impossible.

gaussian said:
If you debunked it, Rachael Maddow is a scholar of the highest order.
More...
Far be it for me to go off topic....
But ya know, that girl is smart as a whip and then some. You try going out there and doing what she does every night with the unflappable fluidity and from the hip sparkle she delivers. Of course everyone on the right despises her, but talent is what talent is. You think daytrading is impossible, she is in the .001% of her field.

She has a PHD in Philosophy too btw. Just sayin'.

Other than that.... carry on.

PS... The Big Short makes a very valid point about mis-priced assets. Hard to find right now. I like finding the over-priced ones and praying I don't get f'd. That happens too don't I know.
Regarding staring at screens all day... ET at least makes it somewhat entertaining. "The number 1 social network for traders." Or so they say. You can give back to humanity here by posting in the politics section. :cool: 8-)
 
Last edited:
There is another study by University of California, Berkeley

That shows less than 1% of day traders predictably earn profits.
https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers/Day Traders/Day Trading and Learning 110217.pdf

Anyone who has traded for some time should know this is pretty much true, for every 1 trader that makes it, you will find 99 that dont.

Just go into any trading chatroom, its very clear there, its even clear here.

Just think of the math, for someone to make a living, someone has to make a quite a bit of money from trading, where does that money come from? must be from the 99 that filled the other side of their trade

At minimum Market markers & arbitragers surely take the money from the retailers.
 
gaussian said:
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".
More...

You have no fuckin clue. It takes an edge and proper risk management. Something most people don't have an interest in. With that said, it's more than possible.
 
gaussian said:
This is not what they're arguing. No one is arguing about "it takes a long time to learn a hard skill and trading is a hard skill".

What they are arguing, effectively, is that as a new day trader the barrier to entry is so high it effectively is impossible to do properly from what they defined as starting from a stand-still. You can attribute this to a number of things - leverage being the key in my mind. Unlike your examples trading has a major barrier to entry: you need to build the capital up to do it and when you blow out you have to decide to either build it up again or quit - most people quit. They are not arguing about perseverance they are arguing the leveraged instruments do not give a new day trader a fighting chance. An equivalency to your example would be if an Electrician was kicked out of the program for any failure at ANY time in their learning, and had to start all over from the beginning (including re-paying for tuition!)
More...

The subject is clearly centered on "day traders do not learn with experience". And the vast majority in the study have been trading less than a year. In no way do they suggest that the barrier to enter trading is high or that futures or options are the demise of these traders.

They mention the rising number of day traders and brokers that offer no commissions, the opposite of the high barrier you claim the article is about.

We all know that being over leveraged & lacking enough capital dooms traders, this study does not go there on any level. This 'study' is highly flawed - the authors believe if you can't get good at it inside of a year than you never could.
 
Last edited:
gaussian said:
Oh look another allegedly successful trader telling me science is wrong. SURPRISE.
More...

Yes. That's EXACTLY what I am saying. Just because you have failed doesn't mean the rest of us have. I'd be more than willing to prove you're "science" wrong.
 
For sure, daytrading is one of the most difficult trading style - in fact, it is much easier to be profitable in swing trader because in such case you just need to be right in choosing the general direction while in daytrading you should choose the direction for the short period of time and also the entry point that would be close enough to the beginning of the short term trend. Of course, swing traders pay attention to the entry points too since it helps them to improve their risk-reward ratio, but sometimes they could just buy and hold through the tought periods (it is easy when you have no large leverage).That is why most of successful daytaders are top-tier professionals working in prop trading companies since it is quite difficult for retail trader. One going to be a daytrader should also have a proper mindset to be able to deal with serious psychological overloads that take place almost each day.

So, in my opinion, it is possible to be profitable in daytrading, but only few of those going to trade would be able to trade for living.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top