tar
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,443
- Likes
- 1,314
Old thread , 95% isnt a myth .
95% of traders lose... This is nothing more than a myth.
Old thread , 95% isnt a myth .
foroom lluzers
Veteren member
- Messages
- 3,608
- Likes
- 138
tar
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,443
- Likes
- 1,314
95% is a myth
foroom lluzers
Veteren member
- Messages
- 3,608
- Likes
- 138
NVP
Guest Author
- Messages
- 37,957
- Likes
- 2,156
goldorcold
Newbie
- Messages
- 4
- Likes
- 0
Nice one, thanks for the info!
So here we have four pages of a thread - where someone decides (and there is no sugar coating this...) without any highly regarded supporting reference that, ahem, 95% lose. Oh dear... (shakes head) Another respondent then challenged the percentage on the basis that it was somehow an improper figure, only because the not particularly well referenced said percentage was allegedly accumulated over 3 months; Which would have been a valid and perfectly smart riposte, of course, *if only* there had been some merit in the original figure! But there isn't any.
Good folks, once and for all, there is a very relevant figure, recently published straight from none other than the FCA itself. And frankly, if their figure of winning/losing traders isn't the last word on this debate, then (shakes head yet again...) there can be no convincing any of you who still choose to believe otherwise. Yes indeed, this poster quotes verbatim, from the recent FCA publication entitled CP 16-40 FCA CONSULTATION PAPER - DECEMBER 2016 @ page 5:
" Based on a sample of client account data collected as part of this work, we also found over 80% of clients lost money on these products over a year." Again, that is an industry wide percentage submitted by none other than the FCA itself - with regard to retail clients using both spreadbets and CFDs.
The idea that 95% lose is, alas, most unquestionably mythical nonsense. Otherwise the FCA would have submitted that they'd found in over a year studying the whole industry, that around 95% lost. If they did, then of course it would be right to suggest that so many lose. Only they don't - the correct figure is, instead, around 80%. In other words, that around 80% lose is most definitely the number which needs to be discussed in this thread. Which is, if only you think about it, a comparatively excellent rate of consistent winners. That is, (just as I've said elsewhere, with apologies to those who are aware of this) in no other form of organised gambling, will you find anywhere near the same number of consistent winners. In poker for example, you will find that the percentage of profitable players is substantially fewer - at around 10%
All apologies to anyone who's read this poster's response on this topic elsewhere in the forums. But it's extraordinary that this thread made it to 4 pages, on such a mythical figure (as a few of you have admittedly already realised), without any solid source, when there is a perfectly good source to contradict such a percentage. Just over three years ago, The Economist magazine also published, when it last discussed retail punting on the markets, the figure of 80% who consistently lose. Ergo around 20% win consistently or 1 in 5 don't lose. Lastly, it might also be argued that anyone who is thinking of chucking to towel in, only to gamble on something else instead, would be well advised to think about the true figures first. HTH
Good folks, once and for all, there is a very relevant figure, recently published straight from none other than the FCA itself. And frankly, if their figure of winning/losing traders isn't the last word on this debate, then (shakes head yet again...) there can be no convincing any of you who still choose to believe otherwise. Yes indeed, this poster quotes verbatim, from the recent FCA publication entitled CP 16-40 FCA CONSULTATION PAPER - DECEMBER 2016 @ page 5:
" Based on a sample of client account data collected as part of this work, we also found over 80% of clients lost money on these products over a year." Again, that is an industry wide percentage submitted by none other than the FCA itself - with regard to retail clients using both spreadbets and CFDs.
The idea that 95% lose is, alas, most unquestionably mythical nonsense. Otherwise the FCA would have submitted that they'd found in over a year studying the whole industry, that around 95% lost. If they did, then of course it would be right to suggest that so many lose. Only they don't - the correct figure is, instead, around 80%. In other words, that around 80% lose is most definitely the number which needs to be discussed in this thread. Which is, if only you think about it, a comparatively excellent rate of consistent winners. That is, (just as I've said elsewhere, with apologies to those who are aware of this) in no other form of organised gambling, will you find anywhere near the same number of consistent winners. In poker for example, you will find that the percentage of profitable players is substantially fewer - at around 10%
All apologies to anyone who's read this poster's response on this topic elsewhere in the forums. But it's extraordinary that this thread made it to 4 pages, on such a mythical figure (as a few of you have admittedly already realised), without any solid source, when there is a perfectly good source to contradict such a percentage. Just over three years ago, The Economist magazine also published, when it last discussed retail punting on the markets, the figure of 80% who consistently lose. Ergo around 20% win consistently or 1 in 5 don't lose. Lastly, it might also be argued that anyone who is thinking of chucking to towel in, only to gamble on something else instead, would be well advised to think about the true figures first. HTH
Last edited:
foroom lluzers
Veteren member
- Messages
- 3,608
- Likes
- 138
foroom lluzers
Veteren member
- Messages
- 3,608
- Likes
- 138
you no nothing more than Tar the great or Attila the great!
@ foroom lluzers, I would opine that your 2639th post is one of your very finest, and so I've no doubt you're onto something.
Matter of fact, I've since realised that a wee error has indeed appeared in my above post - moreover - when I wrote this: " Lastly, it might also be argued that anyone who is thinking of chucking to towel in, only to gamble on something else instead, would be well advised to think about the true figures first."
... I did of course mean to write the syntactically correct: " Lastly, it might also be argued that anyone who is thinking of chucking <b>the</b> towel in, only to gamble on something else instead, would be well advised to think about the true figures first."
Other than that, the very best, arguably 'the horse's mouth of sources', still states that around 80% lose, and accordingly around 20% don't. HTH
😉
Matter of fact, I've since realised that a wee error has indeed appeared in my above post - moreover - when I wrote this: " Lastly, it might also be argued that anyone who is thinking of chucking to towel in, only to gamble on something else instead, would be well advised to think about the true figures first."
... I did of course mean to write the syntactically correct: " Lastly, it might also be argued that anyone who is thinking of chucking <b>the</b> towel in, only to gamble on something else instead, would be well advised to think about the true figures first."
Other than that, the very best, arguably 'the horse's mouth of sources', still states that around 80% lose, and accordingly around 20% don't. HTH
😉
foroom lluzers
Veteren member
- Messages
- 3,608
- Likes
- 138
It depends how you look at the subject , 100 % lose if they only look at only losing trades .
If you look at psychology if full details then 100% should lose in the absence of any analysis ,
If you look at psychologically wired traders using only set using forget strategies , 100 % should win.
If you look at professionals and how they trade , which is totally different from forum learners and amateurs , 100% win because they do it correctly.
If you count the dunning-kruger characters who go into trading , most lose because they are not traders but learners who are unqualified.The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is.
If you go tho the zoo and find sheep following the crowd , the monkey brain ancestral brain traders , the leopards , the hares , the alligators , the scorpions etc , 100% of them lose.
These figures are incorrect in all cases.
EnlightenedJoe
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,950
- Likes
- 99
Well, I worked with a professional for a few years in hedge funds. Everything he touched resulted in a loss, exactly like the internet "traders".
He did make large sums before the proprietary trading was separated out from banks when that kind of trading was determined to be a conflict of interest.
Basically if you worked for the banks and traded, you would win. If you were kicked out of the banks and trade the other side of the banks, you would lose.
So I don't know where you are getting your info from. I don't think people should make stuff up. They will just fool themselves.
foroom lluzers
Veteren member
- Messages
- 3,608
- Likes
- 138
Most hedge funds are speculators /gamblers , most bank traders are trading an edge , in other words they have orders to buy at specific prices , they have guaranteed profit once they execute in the markets .The other side of their trade is the bank customer.
EnlightenedJoe
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,950
- Likes
- 99
So hedge funds are not professionals any more ?
foroom lluzers
Veteren member
- Messages
- 3,608
- Likes
- 138
I would say "investors in hedge funds are in the 95% club".
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3168309-hedge-fund-closures-return-crisis-highs
foroom lluzers
Veteren member
- Messages
- 3,608
- Likes
- 138
How come this unlucky guy was permitted to enter hedge fund office and touch buttons? At least you may got wrong impression or understood his occupation incorrectly.
