You have a very little probability of becoming a Hollywood star. You have absoulutely NO probability (0%) of becoming a profitable daytrader. Little beats nothing. So as a logical conclusion: You are more likely to become a top Hollywood actor or popstar than profitable trader. They DO care and they know I've posted profitable trades, that the newbies can follow to be profitable too. Maybe I might be a problem for churning shills, but I'm a profit-maker that newbies can follow to profit too. Amen! But at least they can have a daytime job to make a living, in case they never hit it big (most don't). Daytraders can't. He meant: you sit all day so HIM can become a millionaire Because he's a broker profiting from trading-commissions. These "facts" were stated BY BROKERS. Of course they inflate the "winners" %. The fact is that there has never ever being a single documented case of a profitable daytrader in the long run. Actually you're a broker shill (using one of the many nicknames they use on discussion boards).
The authors are both professors, not brokers. Anyway, clearly you've decided what is and isn't a fact based on how well is suits your predefined conclusion. Which is fine. One cannot expect everyone to look at the world with an open mind and reason. In fact, your closed-minded perspective is the historical norm for the human race, so it's completely unsurprising. However, if you had read the paper, you'd see that the authors essentially conclude that profitable day traders make their profits from losing day traders (and probably some losing mutual fund managers, since the profits of the profitable day traders are larger than the losses of unprofitable day traders) in a zero sum game. Yes, the broker gets a cut, but even after that cut, profitable day traders are still profitable. Seems to me like a classic zero-sum game outcome, where some are winners and some are losers, i.e. just like the rest of life. Thus, the more fruitful avenue of analysis is "How do I transition from being a losing day trader to being a winning one?" There, again, the paper offers clues, i.e. the most profitable day traders were those who traded the least and those who traded the most. So, if you are a day trader who trades an amount of times which is neither in the lowest-frequency segment (1 to 49 trades) nor the highest-frequency segment (750+ trades per day), you should probably figure out how to get in to one of those segments by either scaling back the number of trades you make (and focus) or by scaling up your method to make more trades and take advantage of economies of scale, relatively speaking. I highly doubt that anyone who is making more than 750 trades/day is the kind of person who will fail at trading. The level of organizational skill it takes to get to that level is significant, especially for a single individual, and clearly shows that the person has gone beyond the stage of just being lucky on a trade or two a day and making lunch money. Anyway, again, I am sure that none of this I've stated will matter to you because your mind is made up.
just curious,how much additional income garcia is receiving from Baron on the top of his 5 days a week job at mcdonalds?
Maybe I will also start a career in acting, because I'm very skilled, indeed, if I became a profitable trader, then, becoming an actor it will be piece of cake, isn't? Really, I'm very proud of me. regards.
logic man, you should start a thread to discuss the paper you posted a link to. Would be far more productive than this thread.
Actually they DO profit from churning naive investors accounts. They receive a chunk of the trading commissions, so they make 750+ trades per day. Frequent trading is a scam. Newbies: Follow the money, brokers love to churn accounts.