in a zero sum game, 1% is about right.... think out there how many guys play golf/tennis/football/poker/sports betting for a living.... 1% isn't far off for any of them.
There a lot of noise in many of these samples. Why aren't darts and volume lower if the failure rate is so high - new entrants? At some point, the numbers should decline. Look at options where retail has a bigger presence than other asset classes and the numbers are still pretty strong.
This is speculation as I do not have data to back it up, but I suspect that of those traders that successfully trade for a living (no other sources of income), less than 1% of those traders do so with capital less than $100,000 (or an equivalent value based on geography, cost of living, etc).
You just layout a surefire roadmap on how to successfully plan for a trading career (second career). However, I doubt the 20 or 30 something will listen or believe you.
if 5% are making some money, how can 4% live on it? maybe using some food stamps at the same time lol... and living in parents basement...
He's saying it's 4% of the not losing 20%, which has a modicum of logic to it... of the 20% that are not losing, 20% of those are making a living.
ok makes sense now.... but I just don't see it, no way in any zero sum game you can have 4% making living out of it. the CFD data seems to be just a slice view... 80% losing, but during how long a period... per month? that's quite a gap from the question of 'making a living' which requires year round sustainability..
Agreed. Too many unknown parameters. Too many "authorities" spewing numbers. I seldom post to threads in this vein of topic... I usually have a few good chuckles tho.