bxxcks You guys are just brainwashing people with lies and living an illusion of trading mastery.Try making real money on real accounts , not simulators.When it comes to the crunch on real accounts , it is different. If 80 % of trends fail , market ranges 80 % of the time , even the turtle failed Richard Dennis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Dennis managed pools of capital for others in the markets for a while, but withdrew from such management in the spring of 1988 after his clients suffered heavy losses. In the Black Monday stock market crash of 1987, he reportedly lost $10 million,[8] with a total of $50 million reportedly lost in 1987-88.[2] In 1990 his firm settled investor complaints of his failure to follow his own rules, for over $2.5 million, without admitting or denying any wrongdoing.[9] He also managed funds for some time in the mid and late 1990s, closing these operations after losses in the summer of 2000. Go live your illusions on your simulators
Maybe you think then that if someone tell you to go to a university to learn how to be a physician he is part of a conspiracy of universities to impose education on you instead of you directly experimenting with people until you learn how to cure them. How pathetic...
How many universities teach a science which works sometimes , but does not work always?Which other profession taught at university has 95 % failure rate?
There are plenty of failures in the "hard sciences". Use drug development as an example: "Among the ten largest pharma companies, in the period 1991-2000, here's the breakdown: 38% of the drugs taken in the the clinic dropped out in Phase I (safety / blood levels.) 60% of those remaining failed in Phase II (basic efficacy.) 40% of the remaining candidates failed in Phase III (big, expensive efficacy.) And 23% of the ones that made it through the clinic failed to be approved by the FDA. You can do the math as quickly as I can: that translates to about a 11% success rate from starting in the clinic. And consider that for someone like me, back in the research labs, a successful program is one that makes it to Phase I. It's no wonder that so few medicinal chemists have ever worked on a drug that's made it all the way to market!" http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2004/09/20/drug_development_the_current_odds.php Stats are a little outdated but the point is that success is far from guaranteed in any difficult endeavour. Trial and error coupled with knowledge and experience can apply to many areas. Would you consider the 89% of research teams whose drugs never come to fruition "failures" and belittle them for attempting something where the odds are clearly stacked against them?
Utterly bogus analogy. Those researchers are getting paid whether their particular project pans out or not. How many retail traders are getting "paid" regardless of whether their trades pan out or not? Zero.
That's your opinion. I wasn't referring to dollars, I was referring to the thought process of not attempting something because the probability isn't in your favor. If everyone chose career paths based on percentage of success, where would we be? Where would the inventors and entrepreneurs come from? This doesn't apply just to trading, it can apply to artists, musicians, innovators etc... Surely not all are being paid but that doesn't deter them from trying. What about the minor league baseball players or aspiring golfers living in their cars? Of course most will fail but some will experience great success. If everyone took the high percentage, "safe route", we would be a world seriously lacking in ingenuity and creativity.
I generally disagree with this. It's easy to say there are no inept traders since the craft is extremely distilled to p/l. This is not the case for other industries, which means that you can incorrectly draw the conclusion that there are inept people who succeed in other industries when the reality may be that we're not focusing on the right factors that contributed to success. For example, George Bush Jr. is largely considered technically inept, yet he was good at leveraging his network, connections, and political savvy to get to where he got - that was what the job demanded. There are many equally or more connected/rich people who didn't gain as much success as he did. I don't consider him inept. ...separately, you can make the case there are inept traders making a living, these would be the people who survive off their p/l who trade in the least skilled manner, relatively (i.e low risk adjusted returns). These can be your mom/pop MF managers or buy/hold indexers, or whatever else you see fit. my 2c.
What are you talking about? Their goal isn't to keep everyone alive forever. If it were, then you'd be correct.
Another bogus analogy. George W Bush didn't wake up and decide to run for President, he was recruited. His mother even wrote about it (or gave it up in an interview): "I was shocked [when the RNC said they wanted George to run for President]. I asked 'Are you sure you don't want Jeb to run instead?'" GWB has failed upward his entire life, exactly the opposite of what a successful trader does. Politics is one field where a surprising percentage of the inept succeed often; it's mostly a matter of timing. Just look at all the soon-to-be one-term Repub Congressmen elected last November. Many of those goobers will be gone come January 2013. "Hey, let's all vote for Ryan's plan to Kill Medicare."