Why do so few succeed?

[dbphoenix]

. . . so why then, in the title of the thread, do so few succeed? Or is the reported over 90% failure rate just another "bogeyman" invention to deter others from joining in and enjoying the rich pickings to be had?

Or is there something more, as alluded to by socrates in his abstruse way? .

Continuing my earlier analogy - golf, too, is a simple game. Just knock the ball from A to B and pop it in the hole at the end. The skills required to do that can be learnt and much hard work must be done because it's not easy. Many, many thousands learn those skills and put in the hard work, but only a relative handful succeed in making a living at it. So what is the "edge" of the successful golfer? Is it natural talent, or mindset, or what?

good trading

jon

You walk the same path as Bertie, elevating the discussion to the level of the abstract. Bring it down. Are you by whatever definition you care to use successful? If not, why not? And don't retreat into the abstract by exploring some nonsense like your Worthiness. Be specific. Why exactly are you not successful, if such is the case?

As for the "something more", that depends on the trader. If one is riddled with personal problems which lower self esteem and manifest themselves as, for example, arrogance, denial, contempt, rudeness, etc. (no names, please), and if one has lost large sums on money in the market (again, no names, please), then it is understandable and even natural that that individual would view all of this as mysterious and would be convinced that self-knowledge is the key to it all. If the trader is also stricken with intelligence, perhaps so much the worse, since intelligence often leads to the same arrogant contemptuousness as mentioned above.

As for golf, you're comparing apples and oranges unless you reduce all endeavors to the basics of perseverance, etc.

As for why so few people succeed, I will repeat that the answer to the question is pretty much summed up in posts 2 and 4. However, one begins with the assumption that the question is valid, i.e., that few people succeed. Who says so? What constitutes "success"? If the part-time recreational trader is enjoying himself, is he not successful? I suggest that those who have yet to find success have yet to define just what it is that they mean by success. Once they do, they will then be able to determine the steps they must take in order to achieve that success. Any given individual can accomplish pretty much whatever he wants to accomplish. But first he must decide exactly what it is that he wants to accomplish.

 

[Finlayson]

agree new trader.....this is what i believe I said near the beggining if I remember right.

this 97% to 3 % thing, do people believe ther are 3 % living an absolute gem of a life on billions all stolen of a definitive 97% who are absolutely destitute but keep coming back with money from their money tree in the back yard that they dont have......how can it work like this. I would put more money on the 97% figure that keeps being banded about being a figure of people who come and go.....as in many things in life.

the markets are a huge thing with many different people with many different agenda's

 

[Finlayson]

another reason why we struggle( i wont say fail) shows up on the boards every day....& that is the 'need to be right' all the time....we dont like to be or get things wrong....we see it most of the time here , from some more than others which you would expect.

& trading by its very nature means you will be & have to accept when you got it wrong....something we dont like to do!

obvious some will say I am guessing , but still very true

Jay

 

[sandpiper]

mmm, interesting developments (I'll turn a blind eye to the fact that my strictures to stay strictly on topic have been forgotten here and there )

Trading is simple "buy what's going up, sell what's going down" as Tsuntzu puts it so succinctly. The skills required to do that can be learnt like any other as suggested by Finlayson and PKFFW amongst others. And " a great deal of work must be done" as dbphoenix says since it's not easy.

Well that seems pretty straightforward so why then, in the title of the thread, do so few succeed? Or is the reported over 90% failure rate just another "bogeyman" invention to deter others from joining in and enjoying the rich pickings to be had?

Or is there something more, as alluded to by socrates in his abstruse way? (like others I wish he would be less abstruse and more understanding, tolerant and respectful of others - oh dear, I may have to delete myself when I housekeep the thread ).

Continuing my earlier analogy - golf, too, is a simple game. Just knock the ball from A to B and pop it in the hole at the end. The skills required to do that can be learnt and much hard work must be done because it's not easy. Many, many thousands learn those skills and put in the hard work, but only a relative handful succeed in making a living at it. So what is the "edge" of the successful golfer? Is it natural talent, or mindset, or what?

good trading

jon

jon,

I was struck by the pertinence of your analogy the first time you mentioned it, but thought the thread was likely to take a completely different direction and so decided not to respond

A few years ago I was at the Oxfordshire for the third round of the Benson & Hedges. Having safely deposited the missus in one of the hospitality tents I proceeded to have a mooch. Following nobody in particular, I got increasingly frustrated with the crowds and the fact that it was very difficult to get a decent view so I pottered along to the practice ground.

Almost everyone of note was there warming up before the off. Darren Clerk, complete with huge hoagie, took time between getting his caddy to run to the bookies to put a bet on to actually hit some warm up shots. Constantino Rocca was off to one side giving a young Italian pro some words of encouragement, Montgomerie was pretty aloof, etc, etc.

Anyway, since I found (still do) the whole preparation/practice thing more interesting than the tournament itself I stayed there for a good few hours. Eventually the practice ground emptied as they all, in turn, headed off for the round. There was probably 2 or 3 of us left and I was just about to wander off when Seve Ballesteros turned up. He had missed the cut on the Friday but it turns out he had stayed around for his family and to spend some time working on the swing before going to Wentworth.

For the new two hours I had the pleasure of watching him (occasionally breaking off to have a word with his wife or children) work with Dennis Pugh on his swing. Essentially, he spent two hours working on his Stance, Alignment and Posture. He went through all the same routines that my own golf pro recommended be done on a regular basis (which I ignored because they were too boring). You are a golfer, so you'll know the stuff I'm talking about, i.e. clubs across the feet, knees, thighs, shoulders, back, etc.

I don't know what I expected in terms of practice routine, perhaps something more elaborate, like a David Leadbetter video, beach balls between knees etc, not that though. Those two hours made a huge difference to my game and the way I approached my golf lessons. It also left a mark in terms of my attitude to trading as well. More than a few things have struck me between then and now.

1) The secrets to golfing success, charitably described by pros and coaches in videos, books etc have next to nothing to do with the realities, i.e. basics, work, basics, work. The books and videos are cleverly constructed to satisfy the public perception of what makes a successful golfer.

2) Why were there only three people watching Seve on the practice ground and several tens of thousands out on the golf course (I'd swear several hundred in stilletos!!!!)?

I think there is lots more mileage in your analogy but this is a bit of a ramble already. Ah well, no doubt it will all be pruned anyway

 

[Bigbusiness]

4. They are friendly. Have you noticed that most successful people are
friendly and people oriented? This endears them to others and enables
them to lead others to accomplish the task.

I disagree with this. I used to work in the NHS and have worked with some great surgeons. What struck me about them was how they all had different characters and ranged from the nicest person I have ever met to one of the most obnoxious.

I think the successful people that are friendly and people oriented are sadly in the minority. There are too many people around who are successful because they know how to manipulate others, rather than being good at their jobs.

 

[Finlayson]

sandpiper.....great post, & interesting points

just thought I would slip this in for anyone interested:

good book....'' the golfer & the millionaire'' by mark fisher

Jay

 

[sandpiper]

As for golf, you're comparing apples and oranges unless you reduce all endeavors to the basics of perseverance, etc.

I guess you've never stood on the 18th fairway with 100 yds to the green needing a bogie to win the captain's prize and promptly shanked the ball out of bounds then?

I dunno. To me it felt a whole lot like a crappy trade.

And, yes... I know.... emotion shouldn't come into it......

 

[barjon]

...................................You walk the same path as Bertie, elevating the discussion to the level of the abstract. Bring it down. Are you by whatever definition you care to use successful? If not, why not? And don't retreat into the abstract by exploring some nonsense like your Worthiness. Be specific. Why exactly are you not successful, if such is the case?..................................

.

db

No, I do not want to walk an abstract path. I am a recreational trader and successful in that I am content with the gains I make from a relatively mechanical method and the enjoyment I get from doing so. Those gains do not represent a fortune and I am under no illusions that they would become so if I merely upped the ante - I'm probably too risk averse and fearful for that. Thus, I would not expect to be one of those who could make a satisfactory living from trading as a full-time occupation.

I am unsuccessful in that I would like to make those gains from a method that lends more to an understanding of the market than mechanics - price/volume for example. Try as I will, I find that extremely difficult and I can't help but conclude that I am missing "something". What that "something" is I don't know and it might just be arrogant on my part to think that it exists at all.

good trading

jon

 

[dbphoenix]

I disagree with this. I used to work in the NHS and have worked with some great surgeons. What struck me about them was how they all had different characters and ranged from the nicest person I have ever met to one of the most obnoxious.

I think the successful people that are friendly and people oriented are sadly in the minority. There are too many people around who are successful because they know how to manipulate others, rather than being good at their jobs.

Which highlights two points which I attempted to make above, that "success" depends on how one defines it and that analogies can often cloud the mind (life is like a highway, life is like a casino, life is a just a bowl of cherries, etc).

Golf is an apt analogy, depending on what it is that one is trying to illuminate. But then so is bowling, or pool, or polo, or poker, or tiddly-winks.

Does one have to be nice in order to find success as a surgeon? Of course not. But if the obnoxious want to find success in the restaurant business, they'd better stay in the kitchen (unless they locate themselves in one of those pockets where obnoxiousness is considered an art form).

But then I suppose one could ask if the obnoxious are truly happy, regardless of how successful they are or claim to be? I suppose we could ask, well, never mind (no names, please).

 

[SOCRATES]

Now the "SOMETHING" that's missing....that Barjon correctly identifies.....

Go on, discuss it among yourselves , see if you can pin it.

I am keeping quiet, let us see what constructive progression there is on this...

 

[JTrader]

This must have been said before, but I reckon the reasons are -

1. The majority of people who attempt trading do so without taking the time to learn comprehensively about trading the markets inside out before hand.
2. Most people who attempt to be traders do not use sound trading strategies.
3. Those who do have sound trading strategies, lack the discipline to follow the rules of their sound trading strategies AT ALL times.

It's often said that 90% fail to become profitable traders. I don't know who produces the stats, but a 90% failure rate does sound very high.................

 

[barjon]

db

No, I do not want to walk an abstract path. I am a recreational trader and successful in that I am content with the gains I make from a relatively mechanical method and the enjoyment I get from doing so. Those gains do not represent a fortune and I am under no illusions that they would become so if I merely upped the ante - I'm probably too risk averse and fearful for that. Thus, I would not expect to be one of those who could make a satisfactory living from trading as a full-time occupation.

I am unsuccessful in that I would like to make those gains from a method that lends more to an understanding of the market than mechanics - price/volume for example. Try as I will, I find that extremely difficult and I can't help but conclude that I am missing "something". What that "something" is I don't know and it might just be arrogant on my part to think that it exists at all.

good trading

jon

replying to my own post - there's a novely :cheesy: but since you're all busy custard-pieing my "something" I wanted to get back to it.

db - I was trying to answer your successful/unsuccessful questions - as well as I could so far as the latter was concerned. I appreciate that you may regard "something" as an abstract, but what do you suggest? Is it a reality or a false assumption for a start?

good trading

jon

 

[new_trader]

Exactly

This must have been said before, but I reckon the reasons are -

1. The majority of people who attempt trading do so without taking the time to learn comprehensively about trading the markets inside out before hand.
2. Most people who attempt to be traders do not use sound trading strategies.
3. Those who do have sound trading strategies, lack the discipline to follow the rules of their sound trading strategies AT ALL times.

It's often said that 90% fail to become profitable traders. I don't know who produces the stats, but a 90% failure rate does sound very high.................

Exactly!

Edited to add: if you research ANY statistic you will find it doesn't take much to be different to the majority. Intuitively, I would say 90% is an accurate figure

 

[SOCRATES]

This must have been said before, but I reckon the reasons are -

1. The majority of people who attempt trading do so without taking the time to learn comprehensively about trading the markets inside out before hand.
2. Most people who attempt to be traders do not use sound trading strategies.
3. Those who do have sound trading strategies, lack the discipline to follow the rules of their sound trading strategies AT ALL times.

It's often said that 90% fail to become profitable traders. I don't know who produces the stats, but a 90% failure rate does sound very high.................

Now at last someone is beginning to talk sense. Yours is a very good post.

 

[SOCRATES]

replying to my own post - there's a novely :cheesy: but since you're all busy custard-pieing my "something" I wanted to get back to it.

db - I was trying to answer your successful/unsuccessful questions - as well as I could so far as the latter was concerned. I appreciate that you may regard "something" as an abstract, but what do you suggest? Is it a reality or a false assumption for a start?

good trading

jon

Dear Barjon, I don't want you to think I am throwing any custard pies in your direction at all.

But the "something" you hazily identify is not an assumption, is it ?

It is abstract, but very real indeed is it not ?

All I want to do is to stimulate discussion about it to see if anyone pins it.

I have pinned it long ago. But I will remain quiet and let the others have a chance at cracking it. Let us see if they can do it, though I doubt it.

Kind Regards As Usual.

 

[dbphoenix]

replying to my own post - there's a novely :cheesy: but since you're all busy custard-pieing my "something" I wanted to get back to it.

db - I was trying to answer your successful/unsuccessful questions - as well as I could so far as the latter was concerned. I appreciate that you may regard "something" as an abstract, but what do you suggest? Is it a reality or a false assumption for a start?

good trading

jon

My apologies. I missed the post which you're quoting. And apparently you do not want to walk an abstract path, though many are dragged onto one on message boards since they tend to focus on the philosophical and the abstract rather than the concrete, specific, and useful. And you brought it back to earth easily because you know what you want and are content with what you have. And to hell with anybody who isn't willing to allow you that contentment.

But wanting to understand more about trader behavior does not diminish the success you enjoy. You simply want to enhance what you have. That doesn't make you unsuccessful. It makes you curious.

The "something", however, is not abstract or ethereal. Anyone who wants to understand it can do so if they're willing to go through the process. Which takes us back to my group and the journalling process, which is between the two of us and something I won't get into here since all of that is private. I will say here, however, that if you take a mechanical view and regard the market as a "thing" rather than an amalgam of and manifestation of trader behavior, then the finer and not-so-finer points of price movement will likely be difficult for you to understand.

All of which can easily descend into yet another abstract discussion of What Is A Market blah blah, none of which is necessary or perhaps even helpful. And you already know what I think about all of this, and so does anyone else who's read even part of the threads I link under my name.

So, either forget about the elusive Something and be happy with what you've got and what you're doing, or roll up your sleeves and get back to the work you began last year (or so). There's no intrinsic value to one or the other. You don't have to be a chicken to appreciate an egg.

 

[new_trader]

rather than an amalgam of and manifestation of trader behavior, then the finer and not-so-finer points of price movement will likely be difficult for you to understand.

Isn't this akin to trying to figure out what the average trader thinks the average trader thinks the average trader will do?

I will repeat so you don't think this is a typo:

trying to figure out what the average trader thinks the average trader thinks the average trader will do?

 

[dbphoenix]

Isn't this akin to trying to figure out what the average trader thinks the average trader thinks the average trader will do?

I will repeat so you don't think this is a typo:

trying to figure out what the average trader thinks the average trader thinks the average trader will do?

Seems the thread is taking a different path here, which is fine, but all of this may be moved.

In any case, no. What anybody thinks is completely irrelevant. All that matters is what they do. And what they do is reflected in price.

Take retracements, for example. Much is written about the point of the retracement and the length of the retracement and the depth of the retracement and the Fib of it and the Gann of it and on and on and on.

But a retracement is nothing more and nothing less than what looks to be a second opportunity to take advantage of a missed first opportunity. If the opportunity is genuine, the retracement will work, i.e., traders will take advantage of the pause to jump in (or to add to positions if they entered when they were supposed to) and the advance will continue. If it's a trap, the retracement will instead become a reversal. But what makes it work or not work is traders and what they want or don't want. All that is required, assuming one has a consistently profitable strategy in place, is to observe, and perhaps to remember, as Teresa Lo put it, "if it doesn't go, you don't want to be there".

 

[peto]

It's often said that 90% fail to become profitable traders. I don't know who produces the stats, but a 90% failure rate does sound very high.................

Sounds about right to me, maybe too low

Unsucessful traders will eventualy desist when the pot has gone or their years of losses cause them eventualy to give up. By then they have probably lost in the order of a few £ thousands or £ tens of thousands.

Successfull traders keep at it (obviously) and go on to win £ hundreds of thousands, thanks to the magic of compounding over the short time-frames that traders work to, and their longer time in the business. And it all has to come, indirectly perhaps, from the unsuccessful traders.
pete

 

[peto]

Isn't this akin to trying to figure out what the average trader thinks the average trader thinks the average trader will do?

]

I thought it was more to do with trying to figure out what the above-average traders think the average trader thinks the average trader thinks the average trader will do? And then doing the opposite?