Exactly. Out to prove he is SO SMART by writing articles. I know your kind real well - an expert at something they have never practiced before. Truly, what a joke.
I'm not doubting the trading abilities of anyone here, but here is something to consider. i ran a random signal test where i tell my computer to pick 292 random trades out of the SP market from 1982 to 2007, and i ran the test 255 times to replicate 255 traders. the results are below. out of 255 traders 78% of them were net positive, 67% of them made over $100,000, 55% of them made over $200,000 and 1% of those 255 traders made north of 1 million dollars simply by luck. i just thought that it was interesting. i redid the trader burnout calculation using 90% rate, i was not aware that there was data supporting the 90% burnout rate, i simply used the fact that less than 50% of fund managers do not beat market returns. <img src = "http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/9108/traderssjn5.gif"
Your can do simple addition and division, now where you're fucking up is thinking you can do probability. You've claimed in other posts you have a good background in statistics. You don't. Well, that is if your not just posting up garbage to support the other garbage your spitting out. Do you even know what randomness is? Do you know how many times a monte carlo simulation can come up very very positive modeling a traders portfolio? You quote that these things are statistically valid enough to prove there is not randomness. Your point is completely nullified due to the fact you can't see you have hit a run of random positives and are now very net positive. Keep "trading" for another 20 years. Chances are, you'll be a miserable bottom feeder.
My parents payed for both my undergrad an my masters. The doctorate program is costing me nothing. Thanks.
WallstGolfer31, Honestly,at your age , I was like you, a "know it all type" in my second year of the university 20 years later, I realize what an arrogant, ignorant prick I was In the beginning of my trading career, the markets looked random to me and my results reflected that ; I calculated the expected value of my trades in the case you have no edge : spread*number of trades and that matched almost exactly the net result of my trades. for example on my first 200 trades in a product with a spread of 1 point ; expected value = 200* (-1) = -200 points and the results of my trades was about -190 points, very close to a random expected outcome now when I calculate the net result on my last 200 trades(and on any consecutive 200 trades of my last 2000 trades) with the same 1 point spread, I make about 120 points so that's 320 points better than a random expected outcome. The improvement has come step by step as I gained insight and made little "discoveries" over the years , now it seems to level out AND my edge seems quite stable. I keep having consistent "luck" , what you think ?
Your posts pretty much paints the picture. Why would anyone give a rats ass for what you posted when you can't even understand english. If I need to further explain myself. OHHHHHH MY! Hehe Thanks for people like you we can make some green!
Wow, you are some asshole, Golfboy. I can tell you will fail though, because of your ego. Have fun working nights at Mickey D's, Douchebag. You clueless Moron Oh, and it's not payed, it's paid. You have a master's, but haven't mastered fourth grade english LOL!