You start a hedge fund. You hire 100 novice traders. You match their capital 3:1. You set up a trading floor with individual trading stations.
BUT - and here's the kicker - you have a trading interface with the buttons switched. Everytime they think they are buying, they're actually selling. They see their p/l * -1 (i.e. when they think they're having a bad morning, and they start to trade emotionally and lever up to get it back, they're actually having a hugely good day).
When they think they have lost all their original money, you let them go and hire replacements, telling them that you absolve them of their losses and refund them their original money (which, of course, is a small portion of the huge gains they have made for you).
The details of exactly how to set it up are unimportant...the key point remains: If you believe that trading is hard, on average, and the odds are that most traders will fail, at least at first, then you also believe, ipso facto, that the inverse of those statements is also just as true for an inverted trading interface (ie, trading is easy, on average, and the odds are that most traders will succeed, at least at first). Their decision-making would be a consistent money machine.
I think this would actually work in practice (except for possible legal issues).
I also believe that it is proof, for the trading nihilists who seem to show up on this website from time to time, that consistently winning trading is possible.
BUT - and here's the kicker - you have a trading interface with the buttons switched. Everytime they think they are buying, they're actually selling. They see their p/l * -1 (i.e. when they think they're having a bad morning, and they start to trade emotionally and lever up to get it back, they're actually having a hugely good day).
When they think they have lost all their original money, you let them go and hire replacements, telling them that you absolve them of their losses and refund them their original money (which, of course, is a small portion of the huge gains they have made for you).
The details of exactly how to set it up are unimportant...the key point remains: If you believe that trading is hard, on average, and the odds are that most traders will fail, at least at first, then you also believe, ipso facto, that the inverse of those statements is also just as true for an inverted trading interface (ie, trading is easy, on average, and the odds are that most traders will succeed, at least at first). Their decision-making would be a consistent money machine.
I think this would actually work in practice (except for possible legal issues).
I also believe that it is proof, for the trading nihilists who seem to show up on this website from time to time, that consistently winning trading is possible.