You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
When someone asks "what you do for a living" what do you answer!
- Thread starter alanrof
- Start date
Originally posted by SilverBullet
But can someone please explain to me exactly WHY day trading has such poor connotations among many of the public? Is it because fundamentals are no longer important (although they are the underlying part of stock prices) or is it because we can make money when they lose it....essentially a zero sum game.
From the public's view, you are in a job that anyone can do. You are your own boss, you sit behind a computer everyday, and watch porn, most of the time (not applicable to all daytraders). Some days you can make deposits that turn people's heads. This job is all over the place, there is no order in this industry. It all comes down to you and how you conduct yourself.
It isn't until people invest money and lose their ass, until you get respect from them as a daytrader.
Originally posted by SilverBullet
....essentially a zero sum game.
I don't understand this whole "zero sum game" mentality. I mean, if I short a stock....you buy it....you sell it for a ten cent gain....stock falls 1 point.....i cover my short buying from a guy who sells it to me for a 10 cent loss:
I made money;
you made money;
guy lost money.
where does the zero sum fit in here?
-PPPound
Let's look closer:Originally posted by Pound
I made money;
you made money;
guy lost money.
where does the zero sum fit in here?
-PPPound
I made money ($1/share)
you made money ($0.1/share)
guy lost money ($1.10)
But, $1 gain+$0.1 gain - $1.1 loss = $0 (that's basically the zero sum, prior to commissions and fees)
Pound,
You left out one thing. When you shorted the stock you just borrowed it from someone else who was long in the stock. They lost money too. 2 people made money 2 people lost money. The reason the it is a zero sum game is because all you do when you buy a stock is put you money into the persons account that sold you the stock. When you sell the stock someone else is just putting money in your account. Money is just transferred from one account to another. Nothing more than a zero sum game.
You left out one thing. When you shorted the stock you just borrowed it from someone else who was long in the stock. They lost money too. 2 people made money 2 people lost money. The reason the it is a zero sum game is because all you do when you buy a stock is put you money into the persons account that sold you the stock. When you sell the stock someone else is just putting money in your account. Money is just transferred from one account to another. Nothing more than a zero sum game.
Originally posted by Fohat
Let's look closer:
I made money ($1/share)
you made money ($0.1/share)
guy lost money ($1.10)
But, $1 gain+$0.1 gain - $1.1 loss = $0 (that's basically the zero sum, prior to commissions and fees)
Yep. That's a good illustration. But, academics called it a "zero sum game" in theory. That's in a "frictionless" world(i.e. no slippage, commission, market impact,etc.) But in the real world, it ends up being a "negative sum game", b/c of the factors I listed.
Someone posted a classic response to this question, and I crack up every time I think of it.
"I am a piano player in a whorehouse."
But seriously, what is it about MD's that make them such @$$wipes. (no offense to the fine physicians who frequent this board) Is it something that is beaten into them in med school? You almost never hear stories about how this "amazing doctor" investigated someones illness and though deep thinking and dillignece solved the problem. It is always "I had to go to three jerks before I could even get someone who would listen to me for five minutes". I have never seen a group of people so arrogant and condescending yet so ineffective at their stated task.
"I am a piano player in a whorehouse."
But seriously, what is it about MD's that make them such @$$wipes. (no offense to the fine physicians who frequent this board) Is it something that is beaten into them in med school? You almost never hear stories about how this "amazing doctor" investigated someones illness and though deep thinking and dillignece solved the problem. It is always "I had to go to three jerks before I could even get someone who would listen to me for five minutes". I have never seen a group of people so arrogant and condescending yet so ineffective at their stated task.