What do you mean by this? Didn't you like my argument?I think you are in the wrong place
J_S
Why Is The Obvious Not So Obvious?
- Thread starter nysestocks
- Start date
I mean that no one here is really interested in talking about things that will be of no benefit to anyone!
If you want an argument, then you should go elsewhere, as plenty of people on ET will argue with you about things that do not really matter.
J_S
So you decide what everybody has to be interested in here?
I gave my point of view backed with maths. I don't think it was off-topic.
If you personally didn't like my argument, then talk for yourself only, dude, thx!
I classify your arrogant behaviour as an attempt to discriminate an ET member.
Last edited:
Why do you need to argue, do you not trade!
I am not a "dude" btw, and would preferred to be called a hillbilly
That was not arrogant, this is
J_S
This thread is to me about human behaviour and not about mathematical models.
You said yourself:
Statistically seen 50% of the traders should lose, and the other 50% win; after all it's a zero-sum game with a Gaussian distribution.
That statement would only be true, apart from trading costs (spread), if traders were to use random entries and exits (not a smart thing to do - why bother) or alternatively if the trading methods use by the totality of all retail traders were evenly spread between winning and loosing. The fact is that, or so we are told, the majority of retail traders fail to make money. That leads to the question as to why there is a tendency to fail rather than break even, and then back to the title of this thread.
I don't disagree
Will say - mkt provides the opportunities
A&M is meant to get one's head screwed on straight..., and clearly - so they can consistently and repeatedly suss out said opportunities and exploit them
RN
I doubt there are any reliable stats available. Some news-writer-fuzzies are exaggregating by simply throwing some claims from thin air,
since nobody can confirm or falsify their stories due to lack of reliable, statistical significant, data.
I told of statistical expectancy. That is IMO more reliable than any news-stories w/o any mathematical backing.
I guess the majority of retail is within 1 stddev, ie. making some losses and some wins. But if one analyses this percentil it will show that it wasn't worth the effort,
because they worked too hard for a slender profit, if any.
And for retail any loss is a big loss, be it even only 100 bucks.
Of course going further to 2+ stddev things get interestingly. Here are the real winners and losers. One just needs to take a look at the Gaussian distribution
to compute their share out of the total of the traders.
For successful trading one needs a relatively big account ($100k+) for applying diversification
and to have a low commision rate in % relative to the account size,
and has to work with percentages (and probabilities), not with absolute values.
The diversification is the minimum of a strategy plan one should use.
But even then the statistical expectancy will still be the same ;-)
It only helps the individual trader to be on the winner side instead of the loser side.
After all, as said, it's a zero-sum game; the wins of the one are (and have to be) the losses of the other...
Just an example for an active trader say with an account of only $20k and making 10% p.a.
He/she made only $2k in a whole year! But was it worth the effort?
A bigger account would have made a difference, this time of course seeing it absolutely
and in relation to the work spent.
Last edited:
Yes probably each one of us contexualizes what the right conditions are. Knowing turning points or what may be is what works for me. Witnessing a failed retest coupled with a few other factors is my interpretation of market conditions right for me.
A&M ?
There will be very few that will take the A&M and actually use it, and I am willing to bet on that, in fact, give most people a very simple way to trade, exactly the same way, each and every day, and again, very few will actually do it.
I do no know why most people will act this way, and can only assume that it is either due to them not taking trading serious, or not believing that that it will actually work out in their favour if they but do the same thing over and over - it is exactly the same thing as doing the wrong thing over and over, which everyone knows works, the only difference being making money instead of losing it, by doing the right thing, over and over.
My experiences have shown that very few, and I mean very few, will actually commit to what is required, as, it takes serious commitment to get to the stage where one can understand that making money is not all about knowing, but is all about doing - and doing in trading means getting in and out of trades as the price moves up and down - not getting in and out just for the sake of trading, but as and when price shows that the time is correct to do so, which of course, can easily be explained to someone, but, as stated, most will not do it even when shown!
Therefore, it is the "individual" that is the problem, not the "method", and if someone can grasp this reality and make it their business to sort out what needs sorting, then, as Bryce Gilmore rightly said,
it is like giving the tree a shake and picking the apples off the ground
It is mind blowing to think of the money that can be made by the simple act of buying and selling, and it is ironic that the only thing really stopping people from doing it, is, oneself!
Btw, it took me years to finally see this, and all I can say is, what a dumb ass thick idiot I was, and why the F didn't I listen to what some people were saying back when I started out, as it is being said the whole time, but very very few can understand what it really means.
I feel some fool for all the years and money I wasted, listening to idiots and know alls, who done sweet F all but stop me from making money trading, and once again....
If Only I Knew Then...What I Know Now!
J_S