95% lose

[15 min tlb]

Just wondering who/when/how was this study done? Or is it an estimate?

I find it hard to understand how a such a figure can be accurate across a trillion dollar daily market where deals are conducted anomalously across and electronic network.


Thought?

The question most traders should be asking is "why do 95 % lose , and how I can avoid being unsuccessful?"You will gain something with that knowledge.

Google


Google


Trading Psychology

 

[VielGeld]

More seriously, I would be more interested in a study of those traders who know what they're doing rather than a broad sweep of all accounts. 80% of them are not worth looking at (aside from learning from their mistakes) for the simple reason that they are the ones who lose most of the time.

What I mean to say is, the accounts of interest should be those of competitive relevance. How one would datamine this, I don't know. But I do know that as a competitive player this 20% tranche is the one that I would be wary of -- and the ones I would need to strive to beat (i.e. have an edge over them).

Of course, the market is a different arena than, say, the tennis court, but I would like to believe that the principle is the same.

 

[Mr Woozel]

More seriously, I would be more interested in a study of those traders who know what they're doing

The 5% then :cheesy:

 

[15 min tlb]

The 5% then :cheesy:

They run brokerages ie bucket shops , write books , sell financial services , trading education , courses , selling signals , internet marketing , selling eas , software and indicators ,operating ponzi schemes , funds management ,share ramping and scamming the 95% .

Even robbing pensions nowadays is called trading , according to Goldman.

 

[jungles]

setting up a forex brokerage or bucketshop is probably the smartest way to make money in the markets

a guaranteed pip or 2 per trade (spread) x trade volume,
not to mention virtually risk free

pretty clever

.

 

[BeginnerJoe]

They run brokerages ie bucket shops , write books , sell financial services , trading education , courses , selling signals , internet marketing , selling eas , software and indicators ,operating ponzi schemes , funds management ,share ramping and scamming the 95% .

Even robbing pensions nowadays is called trading , according to Goldman.

What about running forums ?

 

[15 min tlb]

setting up a forex brokerage or bucketshop is probably the smartest way to make money in the markets

a guaranteed pip or 2 per trade (spread) x trade volume,
not to mention virtually risk free

pretty clever

.

It is a dishonest business , price is going up and your bucketshop moves to your stop , takes it out and steals with a false move.

 

[15 min tlb]

What about running forums ?

For entertainment .Getting all the clowns together for Lulz.

Most of the forum owners know they would be billionaires instead of running forums , but would find emotions prevent them from being profitable.

 

[BeginnerJoe]

It is a dishonest business , price is going up and your bucketshop moves to your stop , takes it out and steals with a false move.

I would be careful with that if I were you. His bucketshop might sue you for libel.

 

[Rhody Trader]

It did ? I didn't realise. If true, my guess is the bucketshops are getting upset. I did say in the thread the OP will get paid to do nothing at a certain point ? Maybe it was a voluntary close ?

Nope, not closed. And I haven't received any offers of hush money yet.

 

[15 min tlb]

Nope, not closed. And I haven't received any offers of hush money yet.

How many buckets shops did you research?Did you research the reputable sponsors of forums bad blood Refco's daughter?

 

[Rhody Trader]

Accounts from all the major brokers and some you probably haven't heard of are included in the study.

 

[tar]

Accounts from all the major brokers and some you probably haven't heard of are included in the study.

As for the consistency i don't see it necessarily to be profitable in every Q , some good traders may have a bad Q or 2 , i don't think it effects the consistency .

 

[Liquid validity]

As for the consistency i don't see it necessarily to be profitable in every Q , some good traders may have a bad Q or 2 , i don't think it effects the consistency .

Have to say I agree with that.
Quite a few long running and successful hedge funds are only consistent
on an annual basis, even then there is variance.

Its also largely a symptom of frequency as well, HFT's are known for having
sharpes of +20.

I'd want to break the data down into frequency sets and also
throw in annual consistency as well.

 

[jungles]

he's talking retailers, and many retailers aspire to generate a consistent income from their trading

having a quarter or 2 in the red isnt going to bode too well in the face of that ambition

hence the 4 back-to-back quarters is suitable in my view

.

 

[tar]

he's talking retailers, and many retailers aspire to generate a consistent income from their trading

having a quarter or 2 in the red isnt going to bode too well in the face of that ambition

hence the 4 back-to-back quarters is suitable in my view

.

Then why stop at the fourth ? what if they had 2 bad Q after the 4th ? i am sure that will effect consistency then ...

 

[jungles]

all definitions of "success" are subjective, one has to draw the line somewhere

personally, if a retailer can achieve 4 back-to-back profitable quarters on a "decent" lot size and within "desirable" risk parameters, there's a good chance they have the "right stuff"

........subjective, as i said

Then why stop at the fourth ? what if they had 2 bad Q after the 4th ? i am sure that will effect consistency then ...

 

[Liquid validity]

he's talking retailers, and many retailers aspire to generate a consistent income from their trading

having a quarter or 2 in the red isnt going to bode too well in the face of that ambition

hence the 4 back-to-back quarters is suitable in my view

.

Yeah I know, the point of what I posted was to show that
the same thing applies to retailers.
Think of a retail swing trader vs. a retail day trader with more than 1 trade per day.

Is a retail swing trader having a losing quarter as bad as a retail day trader having
a bad quarter.
No because of the respective sample size for that quarter - much bigger for the day trader.
Thats what I was getting at.

 

[D70]

Just wondering who/when/how was this study done? Or is it an estimate?

I find it hard to understand how a such a figure can be accurate across a trillion dollar daily market where deals are conducted anomalously across and electronic network.


Thought?

Hi ffsear,

I reckon we can work it out.

As follows:

Out of 100 people opening an account.
Let's say 50 of them dont have the time to commit despite good intentions.
Let's say 25 of that 50 dont have a satisfactory entry method.
Let's say 13 of that 25 dont have a satisfactory exit method.
Let's say 7 of that 13 dont have a satisfactory money management profile (ie. risk of ruin = 100%)
That leaves 6 who have a chance...... so by my calculations 94% fail.

Wahahahahaha.

Good chat, no?

 

[tar]

all definitions of "success" are subjective, one has to draw the line somewhere

personally, if a retailer can achieve 4 back-to-back profitable quarters on a "decent" lot size and within "desirable" risk parameters, there's a good chance they have the "right stuff"

........subjective, as i said

ofcourse when it comes to consistency one year is not enough, some of them may get lucky because of the low volatility , they have to be profitable for years during different market conditions bull , bear , low V , high V , ranging , sudden news ... etc , even then that's not enough for Taleb's "Fooled by randomness" :cheesy: