The Leopard
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,877
- Likes
- 1,021
why retail FX traders loose
- Thread starter ChocolateDigestive
- Start date
- Watchers 13
- Status
ChocolateDigestive
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,153
- Likes
- 281
because i don't care and am too busy beating up the market.
ChocolateDigestive
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,153
- Likes
- 281
Because he's another salesman at Curry's, trying to give it the bigun.
It's ok blondey let your anger out, whatever you need to de-stress it's all good.
it's no biggie it's just a book I read. here is the amazon link:
Beat the Forex Dealer: An Insider's Look into Trading Today's Foreign Exchange Market Wiley Trading: Amazon.co.uk: Agustin Silvani: Books
I didn't write the book, the view expressed in it are not mine, if you have a problem with the material in the book I suggest you contact the author.
feel free to contribute to the forum just whenever you are ready.
The Leopard
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,877
- Likes
- 1,021
Touch trading? ¡Cuidado, hermano!
The Leopard
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,877
- Likes
- 1,021
Because he's another salesman at Curry's, trying to give it the bigun.
Assuming that is the case, we must endeavour to remember that even salesmen at Curry's are also God's creatures.
wackypete2
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,211
- Likes
- 2,058
Has anyone ever physically seen the raw data or the results from a reputable source that shows 95% fail. Perhaps it holds true for forum members as the majority are here to learn. The data I have seen, the most reputable source thus far doesn't hold true to the 95% belief. I think it's more a case of hearsay than factual outside forum communities.
ChocolateDigestive
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,153
- Likes
- 281
in a zero sum game where the top tier participants make money whilst trading size and retail traders lose whilst trading smalls the losing % is likely to be very high.
DionysusToast
Legendary member
- Messages
- 5,965
- Likes
- 1,501
I doubt that 5% of people are making money.
Shakone
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,460
- Likes
- 665
Wasn't Rhody Trader doing some analysis of things like this?
Results from the Johnson report.
26 accounts studied in 1998/1999. 70% of them showed a loss and were traded in a way that realized 100% risk of ruin. Only 3 of the 26 showed evidence of ability to make short term trading profitable.
DayTrading accounts, only 17 studied. 65% showed a loss and were traded in a way that made risk of ruin a cert. Only 1 of the 17 was successful, and the report states that even for this, the returns were not good relative to teh risk taken.
This is a small sample, but wouldn't surprise me if a larger one was similar. Have just read another that says 77% were losing.
The above stats refer to the results over a given time of those that have still survived. So when 95% lose is quoted, I guess it refers to the % of those who approach trading, who are still doing it successfully years later. And that would probably be less than 5%
Results from the Johnson report.
26 accounts studied in 1998/1999. 70% of them showed a loss and were traded in a way that realized 100% risk of ruin. Only 3 of the 26 showed evidence of ability to make short term trading profitable.
DayTrading accounts, only 17 studied. 65% showed a loss and were traded in a way that made risk of ruin a cert. Only 1 of the 17 was successful, and the report states that even for this, the returns were not good relative to teh risk taken.
This is a small sample, but wouldn't surprise me if a larger one was similar. Have just read another that says 77% were losing.
The above stats refer to the results over a given time of those that have still survived. So when 95% lose is quoted, I guess it refers to the % of those who approach trading, who are still doing it successfully years later. And that would probably be less than 5%
in a zero sum game where the top tier participants make money whilst trading size and retail traders lose whilst trading smalls the losing % is likely to be very high.
Again, nothing but hearsay. Assuming something is very different from factual
And you base this off?
If you insist, do you have any idea how to get such data? Maybe 95% is little bit overstated, but the minority may hold the truth and Money...
Shakone
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,460
- Likes
- 665
Ok. Only one I remember recently was the forex one, but that was just looking at 3 months, and the way it was reported, there was no guarantee the profitables in one quarter were the same as the profitables in another quarter or overall.
http://forexmagnates.com/forex-brok...mber-accounts-increase-traders-profitability/ here, if you want the latest data you have to pay for it unfortunately
Shakone
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,460
- Likes
- 665
Thanks. Yeah doing it by the quarter gives a misleading idea.
Suppose we look for traders that are profitable in every quarter. Say 33% are profitable there, or one-third in that quarter's data. That means (assuming independence - yes I realise it's not really independent), 1/9 will be profitable for two quarters, 1/27 for for 3 quarters, 1/81, i.e. 1.2% will be profitabl in all 4 quarters. Things are not independent, so the figure will be higher than that, but this figure seems much closer to the reality than the 33% figure. And if we talk about profitability over a few years, then 99% failure might not be unreasonable
99% failure rate ! Horrors !
There must be at least a 1% that hold all the skills and money then ?
How can that be in an industry with complete accesibility and transparency ?
After all, there can only be one of two outcomes...can't be madly difficult, can it ?
Or am I being simple ?
There must be at least a 1% that hold all the skills and money then ?
How can that be in an industry with complete accesibility and transparency ?
After all, there can only be one of two outcomes...can't be madly difficult, can it ?
Or am I being simple ?
- Status
