Ohfergawdsakes -- don't ever quote investopedia. It just shoots any credibility you're hoping for, all to hell.
Sure. Scalping is easily defined, if you define for yourself what scalping is. If scalping to you means "grabbing a few tick here or there" in a trade, and you do it, you are scalping. If scalping to you means grabbing 10 ticks in a day of trading, where another trade of yours hits a mother-lode of 40 ticks in one trade, then you have scalped 10 ticks in that day. You have to define your term. Only then can you discover if you are the definition of the term.
hahaha...Do not be so arrogant! Investopedia is not a holy book for me, it is just a resource in terms of subject area. List of terms, no more. You claim that any definition of it is not true… Ok, then explain why you think so. If everyone will give their own definition of the essence of the subject area (instead of the well-known one), then how we will be able to understand each other at all.
It would seem that just as the Indian scalped the Paleface by taking such a thin reward, that scalping would refer to taking the thin margin of 1 tick. But on the other hand, if a trader who normally swing trades for days or weeks just happened to do a 10 tick trade in a few minutes, to him it would feel like scalping, I guess.
You first wrote with an interest of reducing confusion, but then cite investopedia -- whose business model is based on selling pablum to those (earnestly?) seeking first-level knowledge. They will publish crap like this and will not take it down, despite a relative *campaign* of folks trying to help them out. This is not a one-time deal. They don't care. The video got through an entire production process because no one with any knowledge bothered to actually look. They don't care. It got them grief and well-meaning advice, which they ignored, because "quality" is not part of their business model. Because, you know, they don't care. Your exposure to investopedia might have been of some respectable output. Do not labor under the misapprehension that that is any sort of norm. There are turds, half-turds, and quarter-turds aplenty, and investopedia's business model -- SELLING EYEBALLS OF THE GULLIBLE -- is *helped* by confusion, not hindered. (By the way, to prevent you from watching it too many times and ROTTING your brain, there are 3 mistakes in just the video above, at 0:27 {full turd} 0:43 {half-turd} and, 1:02 {quarter-turd} Thanks for seeking to add clarity -- which addresses the OP's point, just to bring this full circle.
investopedia is not the best source for Forex information but it can be used for some basic referencing and terminology. But I wouldn't use it to learn how to trade etc.
I agree, thanks. But in fact, here the question is just about the terms of the first-level knowledge. It is not connected with any business model. Definition of the term existed for decades before investopedia.
That's your response? The thread was started by someone who correctly observed that the definition, as had been used for decades, has been borrowed, morphed, and lost its original intent. (Reminds me of "peruse" actually -- which seems oh-so appropo.) My first reflection to you was that in citing intellectual schlock-merchant investopedia -- who will sew distortion, vagueness, and outright practiced-ignorance for a dollar -- you lose credibility. Do you not get that you further their mission? In the great vote-off that is The Interwebs, you do not do anybody any favors towards their gaining wisdom. Okay. Well, "Clue." (And so as not to hijack the thread, you get the last word.)