in 2009 i logged 3200 hours trading and taking classes. i worked with a mentor all of 2009, 2 months at end of 2008 and still work with him now. So 15 months of mentoring i have logged another 600 hours on top of that so in the last 15 months i have logged 3800 hours and am very consistent now and my confidence is very good. i had to deal with a lot of mental issues i had but 10000 hours sounds about right if you dont have a mentor. I spent 10 years off and on losing my ass in the market so i did learn some valuable lessons. I did, unfortunately blow out 3 accounts before getting to this point. lol
How are people "logging hours"? Do you have a card which you punch in every time you switch your PC on? Is this like those people who go to the gym for "one hour" and jog at 5 mph whilst watching the little TV.. all sounds a bit inane if you ask me. I reckon it takes 2 years of experience/training/learning to become a good trader if you are gifted and clever, 5 years if you are good to average and 10 years+ to never if you just don't have it. I have no idea precisely how many hours that is.
I think its more accurate to say you need 10 years to become a master of something you are naturally already talented with. Every person has a point of diminishing growth with their capabilities in any pursuit, and they vary depending on the person, with some being more capable than others. The problem with trading is that it is very hard to put your finger quantitatively on what makes a good trader. Truthfully, I've never met anyone who makes money *scalping* the markets, aside the what I've heard of on this forum. I'm sure there are a few great traders out there, but like all gambling professions, most eventually blow out...making them just another gambler. I know as I've spent the past few years 'learning' and blowing up here and there, I've finally learned to go in the direction that works for me (longer term positioning based on fundamental analysis as well as consideration for technical/emotional probabilities based on hunches) ... I assume by the time I get to 10000 hours, I'll entirely have given up attempting to swing trade. That said, I'm not 'losing' in aggregate anymore... Not making especially much either yet. Lots of grey.
I've read Anders Ericsson work(one the original 10,000 hours discoverer). Gladwell who later popularizes it. Then Colvin(Talent is Overrated). And the Talent Code. All basically saying the same thing. As it applies to trading, don't you think there should be a lot of "expert" traders by now? Trading has been around forever. Yet, we don't see that many "expert" traders as defined by this 10,000 hours rule. I'm not talking about the self-proclaimed experts selling their wares. Why is that?! There might be some explanations. Most people don't survive the learning curve of 10,000 hours in order to be an expert. Many blow up their accounts on the way to the 10,000 hours. That's one explanation. Many people give up on this long journey as the demands of normal age creeps on them in advancing years. However, aren't there money managers who have been in the business for decades yet routinely underperform the market by huge margins. My contention is shouldn't there be more Buffetts, Jim Simons, Paul Tudor Jones, Cohens, etc.? But there aren't. I'm not arguing which method is more superior - technical, fundamental, or quant here. I'm just saying applying the 10000 rule there should be more experts than we see especially give the large sample of people attracted to the market. But there aren't.. Why is that? Anyone has a plausible explanation? I like to hear it from a curiosity point of view.
Because what you are talking about isn't necessary trading skill, although thats what it may appear to be on the surface. Your examples include winners on the right side of survival bias, and not necessarily in trading. Your list include some of the best negotiators, inside traders, market making monopolizers (as a result of negotiating/social connections/etc), etc in the business. They just have been perpetually on the right side, helped by their access to capital, connections, etc. This isn't about 10000 hours, it is about circumstance. As far as trading, like I said before (in other words possibly) --- "trading" if defined as sitting in front of a screen and watching price action for 10000 hours doesn't necessarily provide much advantage by itself. Since there is no fixed expectancy (meaning the game can't be quantitatively dominated in the long run) accessible to 99% of the retail market, there is nothing here to 'master.' Case in point: you can't make a living in the long run in a casino playing zero or negative expectancy games. In 10000 hours AT BEST, you'll just be 10000 hours * your opportunity cost wage poorer. In the long run, the only ones who make money in this game besides a few outliers (determined by random survival bias) are the ones who generally do more than gamble the tape. In other words, find a way to collect a salary or commission while managing money or repping investments, or doing some other task that justifies their value.
you might have a point there. But my questions was even if you believe my list(which BTW was just a random list of supposedly expert traders/investors deemed by the popular press). Even if their edge is not pure market "skills", then shouldn't there be even MORE of people like that? But, we only see a handful. I understand your points. But it didn't address my question about quantity. I'm not asking about the legitimacy of their methods, which is a very valid consideration here. But just in terms of pure quantity. There should be way more than a few people given how many people take a crack at this market game and over the years...
Hmmm... Agreed that 10000 hours as a criteria would just result in an increased number of "outliers" as the population increases. But as a percentage of the population, the number of outliers may remain the same. Also, there are only a handful in the top ten (precisely 10) richest people. On the other hand, compare the number of billionaires in 2010 compared to 1910. I think way more have "cracked the market" now versus than. Maybe because humans have a capacity to focus on the extremes distorts our view.
if you went to a trading floor when it wasnt electronic, all the folks who had been trading for a few years had learned to survive ..contrary to the publics opinion, not all those guys were rich, they made a living, the top 15% of the population was making over 100k in 1990,so if you made 125k(500 per day) you were doing well, you weren't rich. If you stayed with it for 20 years you get better and it adds up. Like any profession the top is a very small percentage of the field, acting, art,banking,law.... So all the new guys taking shots to get rich quick are another reason newbies break out. While you are learning to trade , 2 or 300 a day is good money
Yes, you only see a handful, but where would you expect to see them? The people you mentioned in your earlier post aren't traders, they are money managers or investors. You've heard of them because it's in their best interest to have public exposure. Either to raise capital or sell investors on their fund. Independent traders have no reason to be seen or known. They go in to work each day trading their own capital and making a good living. Just because you aren't aware of them doesn't mean they don't exist.