True. It's like the market can "feel" human weakness..or more probably it is because it is a sum of the human psychology that makes it operate. There are really only 2 states as we know...trend and rangebound. The rangebound trader will make a killing in a range bound market. Increase confidence. Increase trade size. Then the breakout comes... Doubt, adding to losers etc. Happens in all timeframes. Adapting to both market conditions is the eternal holy grail.
This is largely what I was alluding to. Everyone is a trading genius when the textbook,long only,ABC swing trade is hitting the boards on the reg. Same trader,years later,will likely be saying 'look at my pnl from 1987 if you want to see how good I am'.No mate,how did you do yesterday??
There are lots of successful traders and even more insightful ones. But the absolute numbers are relatively small. you have to figure out who is who and who is important to listen to.
Well I'd have to respectfully disagree with that. He may not have shown the inner workings of the Medallion Fund but the PROOF is there in the VERIFIED RESULTS. Or are you saying the Medallion Fund is not all it's cracked up to be?
That was only because he was required by law to do share that. The Medallion Fund closed down for outside investors. So my point is still: Why should he?
This is ridiculous. If that is true, why is it that almost no funds or CTAs or newsletter writers that can beat the S&P on a risk-adjusted basis over a period of even a few years? Hedge fund performance is absolutely deplorable. The results are generally worse than a bunch of random variables! Why the term "smart money" is just stupid and very misleading. Very small % can beat a passive buy and hold with a real account size and over several years. If by "profitable" you mean making $1, well what's the value? If you can passively average ~9% a year, what is the value of 2%? Anything under 9% is a loss and given the amount of time someone puts in, if you can't beat the S&P by 5%+ consistently it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to trade, unless you just love it. I'm guessing less than 5% of the people on here have a better risk profile than S&P. Maybe it's even lower than 5%. I studied hedge funds and CTAs to find one that felt safe with my money, and they are almost nowhere to be found. When you find a couple and realize statistically how many should get lucky and be that profitable, you realize they probably won't repeat that performance in the future. If people were realistic with gains, which you never see on this forum, they may have a chance of developing a strategy or edge that could beat the S&P on a risk-adjusted basis, but as people falsely think this is not an extremely difficult game, they start off with unrealistic expectations and don't spend the time to potentially develop an edge. Why my 5% guess is extremely generous.
It was you that said "Jim Simons did not prove anything" was it not? But he obviously did as you say he was required by law to do that. "Why should he?" is a mute point.....as he ALREADY DID.
Let’s say I’ve made a two-digit million USD over the past 15 years. Now ask yourself: what possible incentive would I have to prove that to you — or anyone else on ET? What would I gain? On the other hand, I can see plenty of downsides. So why would I bother? Jim Simons: Same logic.