Study says Daytrading for a living is virtually impossible.

[bbpp]

You are an idiot. Nobody claims there is no profitable trader, not even the authors of the article. The data however point to the fact that someone starting out and becoming successful is incredibly small. Like 1 minus two standard deviations small on a cdf.

The study said it is impossible, that was a deny.

 

[bbpp]

Then you did not read the article carefully. That's not what the authors conclude. Virtually impossible means almost impossible meaning there are very few outliers.

The study sampled new traders. It can conclude nothing on all traders. Read it carefully by yourself.

 

[GRULSTMRNN]

Here it's even in the abstract: "97% of them lost money, only 0.4% earned more than a bank teller (US$54 per day), and the top individual earned only US$310 per day with great risk (a standard deviation of US$2,560)."

I rest my case

The study sampled new traders. It can conclude nothing on all traders. Read it carefully by yourself.

 

[bbpp]

What's your trading experience? I worked for 13 years at hedge funds and sell side firms in prop trading capacity and as market maker, from spot fx all the way to structuring and pricing power reverse dual currency swaps. I now run colocated high frequency trading algorithms with focus on spot fx and have a Bloomberg terminal and trade many millions in capital. Keep on blabbering big guy. You definitely sound like a profitable trader, not.

Here is a picture of my discretionary trading setup and research machines at home alone: https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...r-trading-stations.324110/page-4#post-4827470

Yes, you have jobs like something bla,bla, all those gave you zero experiences as a trader.
I says this because you talked like someone who knew very little about trading.

 

[GRULSTMRNN]

a profitable trader is already among the approximately 0.4%.what is so fucking hard for you to understand?

The study sampled new traders. It can conclude nothing on all traders. Read it carefully by yourself.

 

[GRULSTMRNN]

Lol. Let's agree to disagree. I am tired to debate with someone who can't read nor knows basic probability theory.

Yes, you have jobs like something bla,bla, all those gave you zero experiences as a trader.
I says this because you talked like someone who knew very little about trading.

 

[bbpp]

Here it's even in the abstract: "97% of them lost money, only 0.4% earned more than a bank teller (US$54 per day), and the top individual earned only US$310 per day with great risk (a standard deviation of US$2,560)."

I rest my case

Do you believe a new trader's first year record can prove he can make consistent money?
If you do, then it just tells that you have little trading experiences.

Not only the study's conclusion on percentage of the traders who can't make a living on trading is wrong, the conclusion on percentage of traders who can make a living on trading is also wrong.

 

[bbpp]

Bullshit, it does not, minor differences and technicalities but overall if you compare Nikkei or Hangseng or Kospi or Es or NQ or eurostoxx futures the differences are negligible.

Not only market in different countries have different characteristics, the same market at different time has different characteristics.
Even for different induces, one who can make consistent money on ES, can't do so on NQ.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Lol, no you don't. Does Procter and Gamble need to sample each and every single diaper on the manufacturing belt to test quality? No they don't. There are sound sampling techniques and there is the law of large numbers. Google it if you have no idea what I am talking about. Goodness. No wonder the stats of failing traders is so high. Basic statistics, my friend, emphasis on basic.

Uh P&G makes diapers using a set of consistent parameters to repeat the process over and over again on machinery and random testing ensures the process is being replicated properly over and over again. So no they don't need to test every single one to make a statistical calculation about errors in the process.

So your basic analysis proves how basic your intelligence is in statistics. I showed several times the flaw in the study but you choose to ignore it.

Let me show it to you this way.

I went every year to golf courses in the country and sampled all players who were trying golf for the first time only and excluded all others. Each year I only sampled new golfers and never included those who played the year before. I also did not follow up on any golfers tested the previous year.


I examined who broke 100 on an 18 hole course in this first year and only 1% of those who played golf more than once broke 100.

Therefore I concluded that breaking 100 in golf is impossible.


Same bullshit analysis in the study cited.


Here endeth the lesson.

 

[El OchoCinco]

I wonder how long it takes people to become profitable

The study ignored this factor completely by simply excluding all traders who traded more than a year. So according to this study it is impossible. To answer how long a sample size takes to become somewhat profitable (and that number will still be low due to human factor that prevents most from success) the study should have followed ALL of its sample set for maybe 5 years.