Market efficiency or not, a question a good trader should always ask himself is: am I just being lucky? Your confidence in the future is based on it. A better question is: what is the probability that I am just being lucky? This can be calculated. For me, if the probability is less than 5%, my confidence in my future success is over 95%, and that is enough certainty for me.
I think the real problem is when guys with education but no wisdom are in power or advisors to people in power, I see chernobyl reactor here
You profess greater confidence in indexing until you obtain your PhD. But you imply you will abandon indexing upon obtaining your PhD. Tell us, what magic formula will you be equipped with upon graduation that will allow you to beat indexing from that day forth?
Google has created a whole new class of wannabe, hasn't it? Whoever believes that success in trading has a significant positive correlation with post-graduate achievement obviously hasn't spent much time around winning traders. The mindset that allows for success in the political world of scholarly achievement probably works against most traders, except very high end quants like Blair Hull. Clearly the originator of this thread is one of the masses of sheep who will come, get fleeced, and blame the markets/the market makers/the system/his hairstylist for his losses. I can guarantee you one thing. This individual is one of those Ph.D candidates who fully intends to book into hotels as 'Dr. ____' after he gets his degree. My Dad always held these 'Professors' in the highest contempt (he's a Ph.D himself, but he never referred to himself as 'Doctor').
the smartest people I ever met were at the same time the most humble people , this seems to be inversely correlated maybe they realize more than anyone how much there is left to learn .............
OP probably knows better than Paul Tudor Jones... "Q: When did you decide you wanted to run a fund? PTJ: In 1976 I started working on the floor as a clerk and then I became a broker for E.F. Hutton. In 1980 I went strictly on my own as what they called a local and did that for about two and a half years and had two and a half wonderfully profitable years, but I really got bored. I applied to Harvard Business School, got accepted and was about to go. I literally was packed up to go and then I thought, 'this is crazy', because for what I'm doing here, they're not going to teach me anything. This skill set is not something that they teach in business school. So I didn't go, I stayed, but I was really bored because there wasn't the personal interaction that was something that I craved and having colleagues and being in a clean atmosphere and that was when I started my fund. All through growing up I've been involved in team sports and fraternities and in school I was involved in a whole variety of activities all of which were team oriented and when I was on my own I was printing money every month, but I wasn't getting the psychic satisfaction from it." http://www.turtletrader.com/paul-tudor-jones-interview.html
i do not see any supporting reasoning in this thread on why this view about randomness of trading methods is any superior than the views of others on non-randomness of their trading methods.