On wether trading is a zero sum game: If a stock starts at 10 and now is at 100, what does that tell about the distribution of winners and losers? Likewise, if a stock start at 10 and now is at 10, have there been no costs imposed overall? Some bad and illogical arguments up in the thread about this. I'm not against discussing such details, but the arguments should be high quality and the points clear.
Gaussian vs non-gaussian: We all know price is what two parties agree to pay, price-tails can be fat, and modern exchanges implement circuit-breakers halting too drastic price-changes. Mathematical models are just that, models - not confining, or even defining, of reality.
Trading daily TF, means I can never know when I'll be in my next trade. So bear in mind where I'm coming from - uncertainty and low frequency trades with measly funds (by choice).
However, I see numbers here, "stretch goals", that simply look awesome. 2% compounded consistent profits per real week, what is that in a year? Optimistically, that may mean up to 200% consistent return/year. I believe getting 20% per year is awesome. Heck, if someone manages to consistently break-even, that itself is a monumental milestone needing to be reached first.
If these numbers are realistic, I'd like to see more reasoning how it can be, including commissions, liquidity, slippage and the inevitable trading mistakes. My approach is simple and these considerations are largely inconsequental as long as I follow my trading plan and don't second guess my opinions on the market. However, the extra costs obviously may become large pitfalls for any would-be daytrader, even those who should theoretically be profitable.
I'm admittingly a total noob in options, so maybe that's where all these returns come from? Any pointer in a helpful direction is welcome, though, I can do my own homework, or help with others', when required.
Back to topic: The obvious is only made so by observation, study, analysis, reflection and introspection. I believe it is good to have goals, but they should be more "self evident" rather than mere wishes. Often, putting an amount of $$$ or %%% in goals is not really a good motivator for innovation alone. Rather the opposite - it detracts from doing the required work. Both reward and punishment is generally bad for creativity, not real motivators for true IN-spiration!
The Holy Grail is YOU, Arthur!
Gaussian vs non-gaussian: We all know price is what two parties agree to pay, price-tails can be fat, and modern exchanges implement circuit-breakers halting too drastic price-changes. Mathematical models are just that, models - not confining, or even defining, of reality.
Trading daily TF, means I can never know when I'll be in my next trade. So bear in mind where I'm coming from - uncertainty and low frequency trades with measly funds (by choice).
However, I see numbers here, "stretch goals", that simply look awesome. 2% compounded consistent profits per real week, what is that in a year? Optimistically, that may mean up to 200% consistent return/year. I believe getting 20% per year is awesome. Heck, if someone manages to consistently break-even, that itself is a monumental milestone needing to be reached first.
If these numbers are realistic, I'd like to see more reasoning how it can be, including commissions, liquidity, slippage and the inevitable trading mistakes. My approach is simple and these considerations are largely inconsequental as long as I follow my trading plan and don't second guess my opinions on the market. However, the extra costs obviously may become large pitfalls for any would-be daytrader, even those who should theoretically be profitable.
I'm admittingly a total noob in options, so maybe that's where all these returns come from? Any pointer in a helpful direction is welcome, though, I can do my own homework, or help with others', when required.
Back to topic: The obvious is only made so by observation, study, analysis, reflection and introspection. I believe it is good to have goals, but they should be more "self evident" rather than mere wishes. Often, putting an amount of $$$ or %%% in goals is not really a good motivator for innovation alone. Rather the opposite - it detracts from doing the required work. Both reward and punishment is generally bad for creativity, not real motivators for true IN-spiration!
The Holy Grail is YOU, Arthur!
Last edited:
