On top of that, most traders refuse to look at the psychological part of their trading. Anytime you are anywhere close to a 50/50 split or even 60/40 win to loss trading, in the end you will always loose. You will end up mind screwing yourself a little each time you place a trade because you will be asking yourself . . . is this the looser or is the next one.
The Electric Day Trader and Ruin. How probability oppposes short-term investors.
- Thread starter ByLoSellHi
- Start date
On top of that, most traders refuse to look at the psychological part of their trading. Anytime you are anywhere close to a 50/50 split or even 60/40 win to loss trading, in the end you will always loose. You will end up mind screwing yourself a little each time you place a trade because you will be asking yourself . . . is this the looser or is the next one.
exactly.
between that and the mountain of evidence comment I suspect these guys were drinking all semester while playing on line poker. at the last minute the professor rejected their online poker thesis so they wrote this weak pices of crap.
or
These guys are clearly looking for jobs with the SEC. If you have an edge why not run it 20 times a day?
I know the odds of a happy marriage are less than success in day trading. :eek:
If you get married with those odds and she gets 50% + when she skates was that a good trade?
Traders that know how to lose are the long run winners.
PS: Keyword "HAPPY", many are in marriage for convenience, those do not count. many stay together because it is cheaper to keep her or someone does not want to lose a meal ticket.
If you get married with those odds and she gets 50% + when she skates was that a good trade?
Traders that know how to lose are the long run winners.
PS: Keyword "HAPPY", many are in marriage for convenience, those do not count. many stay together because it is cheaper to keep her or someone does not want to lose a meal ticket.
The topic here is directional daytrading if I understood it right.
For that kind of trading risking 25% of capital per trade is not very wise and of course chances of failure of such "trader" (better to say, gambler) are very high.
It's like playing $5/10 poker table with $50 bankroll.
Quote from jack8031:
I do not care that 99% daytraders lose money.As long as I keep making money week in and week out.Look at the P&l of Redink,Weinstein and few others.most of people like starter of this thread get frustrated when they can not make money as a daytrader.This is a game of chance,most will lose few will win.I am very proud to be a profitable day/swing/position trader.Eat your heart out all you sour losers.
Translation = (Assuming I'm even telling the truth in the first place that I'm profitable, and for more than a day, or a week, or a month) I've been profitable for a period, though I haven't said for how long, day trading, nor have I posted any verification of said profitability, but statistically, with each passing day and additional trade, my chances of preventing losses narrows significantly, so much so that next week, next month or next year (does it matter, if one knows it's nearly inevitable? It's like waiting for the death sentence; appeals may delay it, but when the bell tolls for you, nothing in the past really matters), I may face the choice of having to stop trading, or risk losing my initial capital and whatever 'profit' I thought I once had booked, aka 'blowing up.'
*While there are consistently net-net profitable day traders, study after credible study show their numbers to be exceedingly few in number, both nominally and relative to the number of total 'attemptees.'
*Consequently, BLSH maintains his position (based on every conceivable credible study) that anyone aspiring to become a day trader improves their odds of consistent profitability trading by not relying on the profitability of the trading itself, but the commissions generated by trading (the matter of degree of loss and time of loss is a variable) OPM. This means obtaining a position with a firm that has a book of clients, and suckering more clients into that book, which goes part and parcel with that 'profession.'
Do not put to much faith in what some place in the 2009 P/L thread. This is the age of computers pushing out bogus stuff to relieve you of your money.
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE54P4Q920090526
The proof was NOT in the pudding ........................"In reality, these historical performance claims are not supported by valid financial records. Rather, the defendants have relied on false financial records and fake Deutsche Bank and LGT Bank account statements," the SEC's court complaint said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE54P4Q920090526
The proof was NOT in the pudding ........................"In reality, these historical performance claims are not supported by valid financial records. Rather, the defendants have relied on false financial records and fake Deutsche Bank and LGT Bank account statements," the SEC's court complaint said.
overall, i agree with the article. it's useless to argue with the math of ruin
stay out of probability's way or you'll get run over by a bulldozer
ByLoSellHi has greatly contributed to the aggregate intellect of the trading community by posting this high-quality article
some people get hysterical because they don't want the myth to be taken away from them
the good news is that the truth isn't as awful as some people may have thought
the article is not saying "you don't stand a chance." it is saying "you are more likely to lose, if you play very frequently over a long period of time."
if you are both reasonably cautious and lucky, you may win in the end. may win is the operative word, that's all. that's all. relax
Varima Garch