What I am saying, and have been saying is that an edge cannot be transferred, if it can be, then it isn't an edge. Why? Because an edge gives you a margin of superiority or an advantage over the opposition. Making money is not a valid measurement on it's own because an edge is more or less a relative term. The question is how much would someone make with the same amount of capital? Let’s talk in average points per trade for the same number of trades. A person making 10 points/trade has an edge over someone making 2 points/trade. The 2 points/trade person might be happy with their level of trading until they find out about the 10 points/trade trader. Do you see? Now we are talking about the correlation between efficiency and edges. This is where the discussion would make more sense.
Maybe I am missing something here.......
Unless one is the person at the top, the place where no one else gets more points per trade, then there will always be someone better. Does this mean only the guy at the top has an edge?
Like your Tiger Woods example, does it mean no other golfer has an edge because they are not as good as him?
Does not the person who makes 2 points per trade have a "margin of superiority or an advantage over the opposition"? There are plenty of people out there who don't make 2 points per trade on average. Does the trader not have an edge over that opposition?
While we are on the topic, lets break down that definition a bit as well.
"A margin of superiority" one could argue is something one has attained through hard work, experience or being born that way. It is something inherent in the person who has the superiority.
"or
an advantage over the opposition" is anything that gives an advantage. Swimming is a good example. Those new swim suits from speedo are out now and something like 18 world records have been broken in 2 months. Do you really think they don't provide an "advantage over the opposition"? A French lady who had not been beaten in 4 years in the 200 meter freestyle(I think it was) came in 3rd recently after racing in an old style suit. First and second were wearing the new suits. Do you think the suit may just have given them that advantage?? But wait, they might not always be allowed to wear the suits, maybe the rules will change to ban them. Does that mean they did not have an edge over the competition during that race?
In trading an example could be money management. All else being equal between two traders the one who uses better money management will come out with more money at the end of the day. That is just one example.
Your own prefered definition makes no mention of where the "margin of superiority or an advantage over the oposition" must come from. Why does it matter so much to your interpretation of that definition how a trader arrives at his/her "margin of superiority or an advantage over the opposition"? Why is it that if that margin is gained through a combination of pattern trading with good money management then you don't think the margin is real?
temptrader said:
lets take maths as an example. You get all these nasty open problems that people can't solve at present. Every now and then, someone comes up and finds a way to solve it, leaving the other workers in the field behind (and sometimes astounded). You will also find that these people can sometimes solve other outstanding problems. If you ask them what sets them apart from the other researchers they can't really tell you. They love their subject, the always keep up to date, and they are always thinking (just like the others). But it's their QUALITY of thinking that sets them apart. They can see things that other don't, and when they point them out to others the usual response is: why didn't I think of that before!
If every researcher could have the potential to be of the above category, then we don't need to form hierarchies (research associate, lecturer, reader, professor etc. . . ) according to abilities and potential. Every researcher can just put in the time and get what he wants. But that's not the way it is. What you will find is that, if you bother to look at some original papers, there is an element of individuality about them, as if the authors make their own "mark" on them, just like particular sports players have a "playing" style unique to them. It's this uniqueness quality that sets them apart and give them that "little something extra" over everyone else.
No, it's not nice to know the above, but it's just the way it is.
Personally I think you are confusing superiority(for want of a better word) with having an edge.
You seem to be suggesting that only those who are considered to be geniuses or otherwise brilliant above and beyond the norm can be considered to have an edge. If that is how you wish to define an "edge" then so be it.
IMHO the two are not related. There are plenty of very ordinary(intelligence wise) people out there that have learnt to trade and make a very nice income from doing so. They will never solve a heretofore unsolveable math problem or win a nobel prize or be the world best golfer or garner fame as the best trader who ever lived, but that hasn't stopped them figuring out when to push those buy and sell buttons in such a way as to make money doing so.
It's not as satisfying egotistically to know the above, but it's just the way it is.
Cheers,
PKFFW
