With maximum leverage, and given a 24 hr period. Intraday cyclical waves can be riddin on both sides of the trade. At the end of the 24 hr period. Returns of 30-40% can be achieved. After doing this mutliple times, what seems to happen over time, is that, the trader is just picking the directional trend for the day. With some trades against the majority in terms of direction. So basically that trader is attune to the intraday vector or direction of the market. Also this can not be applied every single session. There are characteristics in the market the trader looks for, in terms of how it behaves. Before attempting to do this. Then the realization comes in that its far better to just leave a position alone at its earliest trend establishment instead of trying to trade it. Given this analogy, then once you know the long term trend for a given derivative, pick a retracement level, and just leave it alone. Unless your playing against the trend.
renegen, academics in the field of the social sciences proclaimed for decades (and many still do) that all the differences in behavior between men and women was the result of social construction. now almost ANY parent and schoolteacher knows this is absurd. but academics WANT to believe it, because then it means that ALL differences between men and women (crime rates, salaries, business success, etc. etc. etc.) can be SOLVED by academics who enforce an egalitarian credo that goes: disparate results is proof of disparate treatment here's some (among a million) ways to show this theory was flawed 1) androgens. men have, on average 10X as much testosterone as women, and far less estrogen than women. this is not SOCIALLY constructed. testosterone is positively correlated iwth aggression. estrogen increases certain emotional response, to include empathy. female bodybuilders that take testosterone injections have documented MARKEDLY increased aggression and "male like" behavior. all those idiosyncracies that women see in men start to come out when T levels rise strongly. 2) studies have been done that show that men and women have the same average IQ, but men's tails are much fatter. iow, you will see far more men with IQ's above 140 and below 60 , than women. women cluster closer to the mean. 3) studies with infants (no time for gender differentiated treatment) have shown that male and female BABIES respond differently to environmental stimuli one famous study put a desirable stimulus on the opposite side of a clear plastic barrier. on average, female babies were much more likely to show emotional response to the barrier (such as crying, looking to the observer for help, etc.) and male babies were much more likely to try to keep pushing their way through the barrier (stubborness, bull headedness, agressiveness) 4) study after study, across ALL cultures shows that men are better at spatial manipulation and mathematical conceptualizing, and women are better at language skills and empathy but the point is that NOBODY who lives in the real world could honestly doubt that there are clearly innate differences in gender behavior ONLY a pointy headed, divorced from reality academic (with a social agenda) could believe such absurdity. but they DID (and many still do) you see the same thing in economics. data does not matter to these people. it's ideology, ego, and being wedded to their pet theories that prevent them from true understanding
no, they are not ENOUGH when the PREMISE is wrong here's a little hint. garbage in, garbage out. if you are not testing the right variables, you will usually get the wrong result the issue is not the relative success of TRADERS. the issue is relative positive expectancy of their trades successful traders show THOUSANDS of examples of positive expectancy in a sample size of THOUSANDS of trades so, this multiplies the # being calculated by a factor of (at least ) 10^3 which makes your #'s completely irrelevant
Wow, I didn't know PhD's candidates could use bad words! This is either material for a social psychology paper or you are just an idiot personified. Please, leave here. You WILL NEVER see me going to your PhD wannabe message boards and telling you that you are worthless - that is a waste of all of our time. You are truly an idiot and with that attitude and belief system will NEVER be hired at any real quant shop, I can guarantee you that.
Tearing down a model is a relatively simple process.....Wallstreet....pay attention here......you must question the assumptions(You['ll probably learn that around your senior year). If the assumptions are wrong, the model is flawed. In this case, the assumption that traders fail at a rate of 50% is flawed. The correct number to use is closer to the 90% level. (There is some research in this area, you can verify yourself if you'd like!) So, use a 90% wash out rate, then recalculate your results, and report back to us. Trading, is a business just like any other. The assumption that exceptional results are the result of just random events is ridiculous to me. The fact is, great traders do what others don't They work harder, the evaluate differently, they manage adverse excursion better then most, and they are always able to recreate themselves and find new edges in the market place. When one edge dies, they change their approach and adapt to the market before they allow the strategy to put them out of business.
Exactly. This idiot is probably another one of the OP's aliases. Can't even get the math right. The success rate is based on a single trade, a binary outcome, once a year. Who in their right mind would assume this?
a chump traded 8 ============================================= WSG, why all the hatin', start participatin'. If you hurl insults it's probably what you will get in return. Go log onto elite3rdtiergradschoolstudent.com and stroke each other over there. Have fun in the rat race.
Are you one of them? If so, sorry - perhaps it's your attitude and demeanor that doomed you before you even started.