I disagree that the main idiocy is cutting winnings short. The main idiocy is not having an edge. May the gamblers keep coming.
The edge is only the beginning. One must also be able to trust it. An awful lot of traders think they're smarter than their own plans and self-sabotage as usual.
My point exactly. Having an edge you don't trust is equivalent to having no edge at all. This assumes they really had an edge if they followed their strategy perfectly, which I submit is seldom the case. So ... #1. No edge to begin with. #2. No trust in a true edge because they didn't develop it and test it themselves. Some well-meaning mentor (Hi, NoDoji ) gave them a workable strategy but they couldn't stick to it because it wasn't "theirs". #3. Lack of money management skill. Overleveraging will kill even a true edge strictly followed.
must be able to trust it = confidence that you recognize it as your edge. this is where most traders fail. it takes more than 'an edge' to succeed. this is why trading is mostly psychology. having an edge is the relatively easy part (although most traders don't have that). confidence is part of part of psychology, not just a statistic that says its your edge. trust = confidence....which is your psychology
Considering that the author's research is going to make about zero impact on incoming new traders, existing traders or the financial markets in general, I can't help but wonder who the actual idiot is.
I've rarely seen an economist with problem-solving mindset. a lot of them like to drool on about problem . probably except the guy started the micro-lending. don't understand the scrap written in economic journal. should work on or write about solution for the real problems.