95% of traders lose... This is nothing more than a myth.

[new_trader]

We disagree because you are talking about your trading style which i dont know , and i am talking about the idea of using tight stops to get better results which is a myth .

We don't disagree, you have misunderstood everything I have been saying. I am stating a fact. I would not be trading today if I didn't use tight stops, I'd be broke. My stops are being hit much, much less often than when I first started because I am now much more proficient at picking winning moves. I strongly advise newbies to take my advice.

 

[ega2freedom]

We don't disagree, you have misunderstood everything I have been saying. I am stating a fact. I would not be trading today if I didn't use tight stops, I'd be broke. My stops are being hit much, much less often than when I first started because I am now much more proficient at picking winning moves. I strongly advise newbies to take my advice.

Which is...?

 

[Splitlink]

Question:

So is trading a case of not losing rather than winning?

You are going to lose more trades than you win. I can guarantee that. Therefore, on a one to one basis, you must lose more than you win, especially when spreads and commisions are factored in. The farther away your stop is, the more you lose.
Therefore, it makes sense to me to keep them close while you are angling for the fewer good trades.

If for instance, you normally hang on to a loss for an average of 20 points. You must make an equal number of trades making 20 points, just to have a ratio of 1:1

It seems, to be generally acknowledged that more trades are lost than won. Therefore you must have a winning ratio of better than 1:1 to stay ahead. The less you lose, the better able you are to get the money back on winning trades.

In my case, I am able to make 10 to 20 points on a trade more often than I am than making 50 to 60. Therefore, by keeping close stops I stay ahead.

 

[ega2freedom]

You are going to lose more trades than you win. I can guarantee that. Therefore, on a one to one basis, you must lose more than you win, especially when spreads and commisions are factored in. The farther away your stop is, the more you lose.
Therefore, it makes sense to me to keep them close while you are angling for the fewer good trades.

If for instance, you normally hang on to a loss for an average of 20 points. You must make an equal number of trades making 20 points, just to have a ratio of 1:1

It seems, to be generally acknowledged that more trades are lost than won. Therefore you must have a winning ratio of better than 1:1 to stay ahead. The less you lose, the better able you are to get the money back on winning trades.

In my case, I am able to make 10 to 20 points on a trade more often than I am than making 50 to 60. Therefore, by keeping close stops I stay ahead.

I see.

So you expect to lose so you account for that by keeping loses very tight. You also don't expect to win big or stay in a trade in the hope of winning big. So you take a smaller number of wins that work out to be greater than your many loses.

 

[Splitlink]

I see.

So you expect to lose so you account for that by keeping loses very tight. You also don't expect to win big or stay in a trade in the hope of winning big. So you take a smaller number of wins that work out to be greater than your many loses.

That is how I do it. It may not be the way others work, though. I do not expect, to use your word, to win big but, by moving my stop up behind a winner I get some good trades every so often. Big winners, though, are not as frequent as one might believe from what one reads. This should be run on a business basis because, in my experience, the damned things go into profit and then run back into loss more often than they run away into the sunset. That is why so many lose money.

 

[ega2freedom]

That is how I do it. It may not be the way others work, though. I do not expect, to use your word, to win big but, by moving my stop up behind a winner I get some good trades every so often. Big winners, though, are not as frequent as one might believe from what one reads. This should be run on a business basis because, in my experience, the damned things go into profit and then run back into loss more often than they run away into the sunset. That is why so many lose money.

If you don't mind me asking...Do you set daily targets? Or do you see how the market is behaving to make a decision?

I like the idea of trading. It seems very dangerous though, especially if 95% lose.

 

[degurube]

.
Ask the direct question how many are profitable after 3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24 months etc. If the brokers could report how many clients where profitable on a day by day basis they would, but the longer the reporting frequency, the worse its going to look for them.

Agree with this....it's part of the sales drive for brokers to make money less they wouldn't engage in this business. On the other hand, a longer reporting frequency may not necessarily improve stats due to the time required for mastery and the fact that a lot of folks actually retreat as can't handle the losses.

But then again...it's a topic that requires a lot of unavailable information to conclude definitely so will always be open for discussion.

 

[Splitlink]

If you don't mind me asking...Do you set daily targets? Or do you see how the market is behaving to make a decision?

I like the idea of trading. It seems very dangerous though, especially if 95% lose.

I rarely use targets but lots do. That, probably, is a better way to lock a profit in before the price runs back, as I mentioned before. I'd like to mention that I am a retired guy with a pension. I trade as a pastime and am happy to take a certain amount out for holidays and extras. It makes for a different outlook to someone who is looking to make a living out of it. That is why, probably, that I am happy to snatch a few quid here and there!

 

[barryb]

There you go, that's why we disagree. You're talking coin flips, stabs in the dark, hit-and-miss trading, I am talking proficiency.

The End.

lol

I used to love that signature someone had on T2W:

"New Trader is to trading, what Air France is to Aviation."

Classic.

 

[new_trader]

lol

I used to love that signature someone had on T2W:

"New Trader is to trading, what Air France is to Aviation."

Classic.

"Someone" lol...shows how memorable he was to you...it was rathcoole_exile.

 

[barryb]

"Someone" lol...shows how memorable he was to you...it was rathcoole_exile.

I seem to remember he changed it in the end...so either A.F's safety record got better, or you stopped spouting as much bollox. Still don't know which though...

 

[new_trader]

I seem to remember he changed it in the end...so either A.F's safety record got better, or you stopped spouting as much bollox. Still don't know which though...

I'm sure you don't. You'll have to wait for someone to tell you

 

[barryb]

I'm sure you don't. You'll have to wait for someone to tell you

Have you ever flown Air France NT? Let me know if you've got plans to, so i don't get that flight.

 

[foroom lluzers]

Have u guys found new evidence on lower numbers , lower than 50 % lose ?

Just post it.

 

[foroom lluzers]

Didn't the number go down when one of those brokers was caught reporting "interest paid on cash balances" as profits????

 

[NVP]

Have u guys found new evidence on lower numbers , lower than 50 % lose ?

Just post it.

love to see that ............failure rates are higher than 95% as many people dont even reach the classification of trader before they walk ......add in the many who just go demo before quitting and you have a very small % indeed that are elite and profitable consistantly

 

[NVP]

Time and time again i have seen posts from traders stating that 95% fail. Personally believe this myth was started by vendors as a sales medium.To all you traders that actively state this and believe it; i challenge you to prove it through facts not spit. US forex brokers are now forced to disclose the percentage of active forex accounts that are actually profitable. Finally we have access to data that can shed light on this subject. Forex Magnates reports on this data and although the data is not free, there are reports available on the net if you dig around. I have attached 2 that took me about 2 minutes to locate.

so their stats are set up to kinda say

"come on in the waters fine !"

whyever would they do that and suggest higher than imagined success rates ? ......i cant imagine why ?

 

[foroom lluzers]

Thank You

Who else wants to dilute these numbers lower?Where is TARMAN?

 

[tomorton]

What's the point?

 

[barjon]

Thank You

Who else wants to dilute these numbers lower?Where is TARMAN?

You must have had some really, really bad experiences in your attempts at trading. All you seem interested in doing is trying to prove that everyone is as faking useless at it as you.