"dotfutures, I wonder what your agenda is. Every one of your nine posts has had something negative to say. Stating that daytrading is purely a matter of luck with such authority, a statement that is so far removed from the truth it's not funny, one can only assume you're a total idiot. Then, in another post, you say, again with such conviction, P2 should be happy to just beat the S&P. Buddy, I don't know how you can show your face on a site called Elite TRADER and make ludicrous statements like that. Like I said - idiot." lol.....obviously with anger like that you aren't one of the lucky ones. Anyway, if you had any reading comprehension you wouldn't angered by my posts at all. If you don't get a grip on reality you won't be an "elite trader" much longer either. Statistics don't lie. 80% of day traders DO WORSE than the S&P. If that kid P2 can beat the s&P every year, he will be richer than all of us put together, if you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't be trying to argue that point at all. If I am an idiot then that makes you a retard, and probably broke too.
"There is the plain fool, who does the wrong thing at all times everywhere, but there is the Wall Street fool, who thinks he must trade all the time. No man can always have adequate reasons for buying and selling stocks daily - or sufficient knowledge to make his play an intelligent play." -- Jesse Livermore
"The desire for constant action irrespective of underlying conditions is responsible for many losses on Wall Street even among the professionals, who feel that they must take home some money every day, as though they were working for regualr wages." -- Jesse Livermore All you customers out there who think you are working a "job" should read that several times.
There simply weren't the number of opportunities for a trader in his day like there are now. Placing trades every day probably wasn't a good idea because you'd really be pressing it to find good set ups every day. There were only so many stocks, you could only watch so many tapes, it would take forever to draw charts by hand for historical reference, etc. But now it's different. With computers scanning thousands of stocks per second, arbitrage, and different instruments to trade, a trader can always find something to trade, unless he's a one trick pony with a narrow focus. Of course it's easier to churn and burn too, but I find viable set ups every single day. And this is my "job" not a gamble or a hobby.
Anyone know how many public companies in Livermore's day? That would be interesting to know. It is silly to compare today to that time. Hell, the market had FIXED commissions till 1976! The Naz started in early 70's and now we have a direct access capabilities at HOME. If you approach it as gambling, treat it as gambling, risk your money as if you are a drunk in Vegas, scream because "they" have conspired to trick you with sudden moves, then you are gambling. My Daddy used to say "No one is a complete loss, they can always be used as a bad example"
look at it the other way. if there were fewer opportunities and people churned themselves then, imagine how much more so now (unless you chase openings and closings around the globe...)
Doesn't make you wonder why somebody who doesn't think trading is a viable method of making money would bother posting on a trading message board? Dotslash, you've come here shouting from the rooftops that trading to make money is a lost cause. Are you at all interested in developing any meaningful discussion of the subject? (Although, I must admit, IMO, there IS no discussion about trading being a viable money maker. Yep, I'm biased.) Such patently silly remarks about beating the S&P are insult to any trader and surely could only come from someone indoctrinated in the "efficient market/random walk" school of thought. In that case, I think there would be very little to discuss. In fact, my advice to traders would be, if you ever hear anyone telling you about how the market "can't be beat", don't bother debating it. Be GLAD that there are people with a stake in the markets that subscribe to this lunacy. If you're a half decent trader, you'll be taking money off them sooner or later.
Heck, if I traded back in the day, having less companies to trade I would have save saved about $256,845 in 2002 $579,684 in 2001 $469,458 in 2000 $265,548 in 1999 $368,659 in 1998 from commissions. Having easy access really does have it's disadvantages
I traded for a prop firm, from 99 to 02. From 99 to 00 there were guys making 7 to 8 figuers. This had to do with their share size and buying/shorting power. This was not the norm, however, there were plenty just at my office in chicago. However. April 00 to 01 the 6 figuers were more common than 7 to 8. Around July 01 to about 05/02 no six figuers in my office. Infact many had reversed and were now down 6 or so figuers. Hence...The times of "daytrading" equities have changed and the expectation has to change as well. All in all, if you traded during the lotto of 99/00 you did very well if you had size....however, if you continued to trade that size in the latter part of 01 to current.....Occhhhh.