Irresponsible broker advertising contributing to high percentage of failure?

[MajorMagnuM]

ding dong

 

[NVP]

ok great. Thanks a lot for the answers guys. It's appreciated. I'm still just trying to find my feet with all this stuff and establish a good focus/direction before I start to dedicate more time to it.

You've already learnt more here than most gamblers /traders do in a lifetime......well done

 

[NVP]

Yeh, thanks guys. Your completely right about a lot of people getting into trading without the giving it the respect it deserves, and treating it more like a lottery. From the little I have seen it already seems to be the case. That definitely makes the 90% failure statistic less daunting.

The Percentages talked about re failure always require more thinking and analysis and due diligence......random figures banded about are usually misleading

I have always said to others that only a very very small % of traders make consistent money..... and I still think that's sadly true.......the definition of traders is the difficult one ......if you include every chancer that goes live account for a 25 quid freebie punt then the odds become astronomical !

I've always treated demos for what they are ....a chance to try out a brokers platform for free with extremely forgiving prices.......I have always told newbies to use them for,this purpose and to be absolutely making a fortune before considering playing for real.......moderate consistent wins on a demo will mean consistent losses in the real game

Regarding the advertising and freebies that now infect modern trading and gambling........show me a retail business not doing similar things these days............they have to to survive .......

As an example I remember being In a meeting in the 9os with a large corporate retail client who was about to enter the grocery delivery business .....they confessed the numbers would never work but the opposition was doing it and they had to do it to remain competitive.......at least in that situation at the consumer has won :innocent:

N

 

[darktone]

But surely the slippage isn't so drastic it would make practising a strategy on a demo account pointless? I have heard that demo accounts don't take into account slippages, etc, but never heard this was significant enough to make it pointless practising on one.

It really depends on how you trade and what type of orders you use.

Have a look at this thread

 

[Vinayak1000]

This is actually a great point that you have brought. Also, must say that this is an interesting take on things on the whole. Traders do get mislead with advertising. There is limited time in the day and when there are so many options on the table, it can be hard to discern the right broker.
Trading is hard work. But if we get the right information and a person who is willing to share valuable tips, I think the failure rate would not be so dismal.

 

[highbury fx]

This is actually a great point that you have brought. Also, must say that this is an interesting take on things on the whole. Traders do get mislead with advertising. There is limited time in the day and when there are so many options on the table, it can be hard to discern the right broker.
Trading is hard work. But if we get the right information and a person who is willing to share valuable tips, I think the failure rate would not be so dismal.

how do they get misled? the terms and conditions are by every promotion, all you have to do is apply yourself a little and read them. just because there is 'limited time in the day' doesn't mean that you cant read what the promotion is before you sign up.. you cant blame other people for your laziness.

 

[highbury fx]

It really depends on how you trade and what type of orders you use.

Have a look at this thread

you're right to a degree but without doubt demo's should only be used to test the functionality and the products available. the spreads should be the same on the demo but the execution wont be. any strategy you run or back test on a demo will not be a true reflection as if it was a £25,000 live money account. try it, run a strategy simultaneously with same money and gearing on a live and demo account at the same broker. you'll see.

 

[darktone]

you're right to a degree but without doubt demo's should only be used to test the functionality and the products available. the spreads should be the same on the demo but the execution wont be. any strategy you run or back test on a demo will not be a true reflection as if it was a £25,000 live money account. try it, run a strategy simultaneously with same money and gearing on a live and demo account at the same broker. you'll see.

I have done H, and for the vast most part I agree.

In my SBet experience, in general, live execution with market and stop orders are normally different, as in slippage on live, which ive no problem with. If there was no price at 50, why should i expect to get filled at 50.
Limit orders however ive not had problem with. Positive slippage yes. I only use limit orders. In - out - profit or loss.

Ive also experienced being treated 'differently' by the same SB

 

[rahula]

Irresponsible broker advertising=high percentage of failure? I don't know how people calculated the "famous statistic" you mentioned, but a positive correlation does not mean the two are cause and effect.
If it was true that people open accounts only after seeing the ads, then why don't they go to the betting sites? At least the minimum deposit is much less than what you need to have in a trading account.

"Take responsibilities of your own trade" is one of the most important lesson I've learned from my experience. Never open an account unless you are ready to be your own boss.

 

[peakoil]

Rare as it is that I find myself in agreement with NVP (sorry NVP!), he couldn't be more right when he wrote this: "The Percentages talked about re failure always require more thinking and analysis and due diligence......random figures banded about are usually misleading"

Dear OP, please take this with no disrespect, however when you quote a well bandied about statistic - such as "95% of traders fail" - please would you do yourself (and the rest of us) the favour of checking for the facts to support that well worn statistic; For the golden rule remains as ever thus: the more a statistic is thrown about without any factual backing, the more persons should seek out the latter. Healthy scepticism should instead be called for; Otherwise that 'statistic' (for want of a better word) becomes as meaningless as it is hackneyed.

As I've put it here plenty of times before, with actual studied findings as reported by the UK's Money Advice Service, the failure rate is closer to 4 in 5 consistently lose. That's 20% who consistently succeed, not 5%. When you look to the actual facts, the failure rate is little different from that of new business start-ups. Which, when you start to think about it, is not so surprising after all. Besides, we're all adults, and if plenty fall for marketing dreams of broker advertising then that's arguably their lookout. Sadly, the very same people, I wouldn't be surprised to find, would just as likely fall for most advertising in general. And perhaps that's just the way this wondrous world turns, alas...

 

[neil324]

Yep the 95% figure is put about that much it's taken as gospel.

There have been a few CEO's of brokers posting on T2W over the years and from memory one said that 'a little below 80% fail'

Seems to fit in with what 'peakoil' is saying above. Strange coincidence that......

 

[dianajs]

Unless one is being actively scammed and/or lied to, their failures are their own. In the end, whatever bonus a trader is promising you to begin trading with, in the end you'll be the one trading and profiting or losing your money.