First of all to the post that said you need about 200k to seriously make money daytrading if full of it. now I have an account of 100k, which means I have 200k buying power. I very rarely use the 200k buying power and I make between 3-500 usd a day. My average is about 5k a month. Thats more than 20 percent a year, I do it pretty easily, and lots of guys here can vouch that its not difficult to do that. But the reason I can do this and I do make this money is because I blew through a 100k account a few years back. So the bottom line is this I make this money because I appreciate the money and I always lock in profits no more greed, everytime I see im up 300 and it was a quick scalp I just take it. I dont say to myself well what if I hold it and I could make more, I dont even move the stop up, I just take it. So my strategy is so simple that most guys dont get it. I always take profits and limit losses, its that SIMPLE. BY the way I think most people on this thread are newbie wannabe traders. Ciao
lol... spending a year with the money should really nail it.. I would just want to goose it along in commodities instead of equities for 8 weeks.
I usually trade with 90k-100k in my account. However it can go low as 60k if I'm in a severe drawdown but I find even that is enough for good results.
Why can't we have a serious discussion about this important topic without some people attacking some others? If someone wants to make what seems like an outrageous claim, let them have their say. I'm sure Baron won't mind, there's plenty of room on this board for some extra posts. We can all filter what we hear inside the privacy of our own offices or, even better, our own heads. The alternative (trying to police this discussion and prove that a certain claim is wrong) is more painful, as the recriminations and back-and-forths consume the whole thread and some of us lose interest. We then go somewhere else, where the discussion is still civilized. What a waste! But then the need to have a meaningful exchange on what is reasonable to expect in terms of gains from trading, how others are doing financially, how each of us can improve, etc, remains. I am very interested in this topic, but following this thread has been excruciating at times. That's why I'm not responding to the initial question. There!
How is this such an important topic, and how much of a discussion will we have if some of the people most involved in this "discussion" are lying about matters related to the very topic of discussion?
It is very important, because consistency of financial gains ranks up there in terms of importance for most if not all of us. Maybe we can create a "thread within a thread" where outrageous claims are not acknowledged and more serious people can respond to other serious posts - thereby discouraging show-offs. Are we smart enough to pull that off?
If consistency is what is important, wouldn't it be better to ask people how they are doing relative to how they've done previously? After all, if someone says he makes $20g a month, but made $40g a month last year (or say $5g vs $10g or -$1g per month vs $5g last year) then without knowing how they've done previously, just spitting out numbers tells little (and can become a pissing or even lying contest between some people here).
Sure itcould be pulled off quite nicely. I had hoped to help out george Gekko get with it for example. I use another's performance to make my point with him. (sr?11) A newbie (in college) in another thread said he wanted to roll on making some money. I think getting neat threads going can happen all the time. I don't make money at the levels they talk about here but I can talk on those levels cause I did go through that in the past. To talk about a few practical things would be very helpful to many. Take the guy who trades at the 100k capital level who gets drawndown to 60k. That ought to be eliminated once and for all for him. Why don't a few people here post like you did on a proactive and creative level. I sure would kick in a few thoughts if the conversation got to be somewhat substantive.