Correct. Every time-frame taking into account every miniscule detail and they know when there is any subtle weakness that can be exploited that no human could ever outperform by playing that game. Incorrect. Successful discretionary trading is only trading when the conditions are ideal for trading. Who said you need to exploit others to make money, you make money when price makes significant directional moves.
1) Then why are their still human traders in the markets making money year after year? And will continue to do so for many years. According to your logic they should have gone the way of buggy whip manufacturers? Granted, at under 1 sec no human can compete and I've always stated that. 2) Why do you think you get the significant moves? Because the majority got caught the wrong way or are trading too late in the move (buying ever higher), that's the exploitation at work. You need others to be wrong in this game to make money, dress it up however you want. So when conditions are ideal for trading, it's because others are positioned in a non-ideal way.
No doubt that machine learning and Algos are here to stay. Having said that, I have plenty of clients who can vouch for a good robust mechanical trading system and rules set using longer timeframes and a lower volatility product suite (intramarket and intermarket spreads) so there's room for all parties concerned. If someone can consistently make money in the market - who would argue any legitimate means ? No such thing as "one way" - that's misplaced hubris. The OP's question regards a "traditional" career path for traders, and I think it safe to say there is not one. There used (past tense) to be an Ivy League path to an IB desk, but it's safe to say that is no longer the case. In fact, GS has an internal task force set up recently to identify talent outside the Ivy League (I think Blankfein is a Rutgers grad - not sure). Having said all that, an expert in Machine Learning ( a flair for high level gamesmanship would definitely be a bonus ) should be able to get on in a support function at a desk and learn enough about the markets to work his way up. Just my own 2 cents. Opinion.
> I think Blankfein is a Rutgers grad - not sure Education: Harvard Law School (1978), Harvard University (1975)
I think a lot of what you say is true but your objective doesnt need to be focused on exploiting other traders to make money. Big directional moves occur when there's a significant imbalance between buyers and sellers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/the-robots-are-coming-for-wall-street.html?_r=0 Technology is taking over Wall Street, and it means investment banking jobs of the future will look very different than they do today. Traders are obviously no strangers to the growing use of tech. At most exchanges trading floors have been replaced by servers, and plenty of hedge funds rely on computer programs to make buy and sell decisions. http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-robot-revolution-is-coming-for-wall-street-traders-2015-8
Now we're talking and on the same wavelength When a trader goes long there's only one thing that will make that trade profitable and that's an increase in demand over supply, that is the exploitation at work. So a trader is trying to exploit that potential future demand/supply imbalance. Exploiting is just one way to describe what's going on, other words and phrases can be used. This is where the perversity comes in. The famous 7th Law states that dramatic price movements tend to unfold from price structures that minimise participation. If you can find those areas on the chart that is where good price moves tend to happen because of the imbalances of orders caused by the minimisation of participation. Therefore in my mind those areas are where the majority of market participants are in trouble one way or the other (they're either short and need to cover, flat and need to buy, or long but not long enough). That to me is the exploitation of other traders. Now, back to Algos. Yes, they're big. Yes, they're only going to get bigger. Yes, they're good because much of it is electronic market making and market makers are always a credit to any market. Yes, they're a threat to many human traders. But no, Algos are not a threat to anyone who builds a well thought out trading strategy based on the 7th Law. That Law isn't going to stop working any time soon because it's all about perversity and perversity is what the markets and trading are all about. So until an Algo can understand the concept of perversity, which they probably won't be able to in anyone's lifetime, don't worry about them.
Understand, exploiting exposures and net exposures per time-frame is an important part of any trading system. That's an interesting theory re participation also, could be onto something there.