These kinds of articles are disgusting. They portray traders as animals in the heat of the hunt, tearing apart their prey as they swear at them. Writers never take the time to show the real work that goes into trading profitably and the discipline that real traders must show in order to succeed. Most of these trading room hot shots will never survive the coming market changes.
Why would BIG traders trade on the side as a second job so that they can still be able to report to a cubicle for the drudgery of corporate employment?
why make generalizations? what works for one person may not work for another, and vice versa. for example: i swear at my monitor, a LOT when no one else can hear. doesn't affect my trading. 100k swings would be huge for me. however, my swings would be large for others. it's all what the individual can deal with, their personality, best trading style, etc. i would say that, as long as you're not trading volatility straight, if you can survive in THIS market (esp. the past couple years), you can survive in almost any market. not with as big gains, but as a daytrader? sure. it's not like the late 90s, where it was straight up, or the early 2000s, where it was straight down.
"This kind of trading is not for the weak of stomach. Milman readily admits his system typically gives him only a slightly better than 50-50 chance at making the right choice, and several of Milmanâs colleagues had vaporized their accounts on a few bad bets. The fact is, few traders are successful at this game. Donât try it at home. " So what the article is telling us, that success means gambling using methods that do not hold up under multiple studies (most TA), but you have not yet hit the Risk of Ruin, as several of his colleagues did
It isn't telling you that at all but you should ask yourself why you think it does. My main strategy is sometimes running less than 40% win / loss in a day, but finishes profitable. It's all about "R". Happy Trading
All of wl4.wealth-lab.com is proof technical analysis can work, and at least disproves EMH weak. Can't say as much for EMH semi-strong and strong, but I'm sure a researcher can crack that one, too.