95% lose

tar

Legendary member
10,443 1,313
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 .
 
L

Liquid validity

0 0
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

Guest
614 67
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

Legendary member
10,443 1,313
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 ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Liquid validity

jungles

Guest
614 67
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 ...
 
L

Liquid validity

0 0
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benj1981

D70

Established member
839 195
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

Legendary member
10,443 1,313
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:
 

tar

Legendary member
10,443 1,313
Here is how some prop traders did back in 2007 :|
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    62 KB · Views: 480
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    69.8 KB · Views: 356
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    65.6 KB · Views: 350
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    64.6 KB · Views: 303
  • 5.jpg
    5.jpg
    67.8 KB · Views: 342

donaldduke

Experienced member
1,665 257
What percentage is losers?

a quick google, the stats for Tuco were

206 traders

33 were profitable (16% of total)

7 had accounts > $50k in profits (3% of total)


So 26 people of those 33 were profitable, but not enough to make >50K a year, how many of those 26 would have eventually called it quits? i reckon most would have eventually found a better paying line of work..
 

tar

Legendary member
10,443 1,313
a quick google, the stats for Tuco were

206 traders

33 were profitable (16% of total)

7 had accounts > $50k in profits (3% of total)


So 26 people of those 33 were profitable, but not enough to make >50K a year, how many of those 26 would have eventually called it quits? i reckon most would have eventually found a better paying line of work..

It shows you that prop traders sucks as well , i bet same goes for Pit traders ...
 
 
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

But it's thanks to our sponsors that access to Trade2Win remains free for all. By viewing our ads you help us pay our bills, so please support the site and disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock