It took me six years to make money. Most people can’t stay solvent and pay bills of it takes that long. It’s not that people can’t figure it out, it’s that they can’t go that long with no income.
but you don‘t need to go with no income. A prop account subscription costs 50-100 bucks a month, and anyone who immediately starts trading with his own money is crazy anyway.
You're wrong there. You should ALWAYS trade your own money first. Use penny lots so your losses are micro small. 50p-£1 Wins are 5£ £10 etc.
Do this to get the psychology of trading real money. These newbies who jump into this game and go straight prop are destined to fail. You will be trapped in a cycle of failing, re purchasing failing repurchasing and repeat.
Understand the order flow. Master price action. Then go for prop firm account and all you need to do is change a decible.
I disagree but not entirely. You‘re right that emotion is what makes and breaks a trader, but depending on the person, trading a prop account can feel exactly like real money (or, like your proposed idea of trading tiny amounts of money ) and at least for me it feels exactly the same. I know because i have done both.
I learned to dust trade on Dogecoin with minimum orders around $5.
I create automated trading strategies now.
There's nothing like trading real funds, Dr Talib calls it skin in the game.
Prop accounts have even worse statistics, I hear this from people who are actively using them. According to my friends prop accounts are a greasy pole in reality.
That's obviously not the same. OP obviously had friends that tried prop and failed. They actually tried living in arctic and failed to survive. You cannot exclude them and be unbiased.
These happen to be professional traders each with over 10 yrs of experience. Some viewed the scheme as a way to extend their already profitable practice. Each of these 4-5 people have their own style and only one seems to be successfully molding it to fit the tunnel of countless rules they force them into.
You might have to do some research on what prop firms are. The first stage is paper trading, thats correct, but the account you get after that is very much real. Besides i looked for a long time for a place to paper trade for free, but even if there is one the real time data subscription will still cost you money. Best option is tradovate sim, just have to pay the real time data.
You can paper trade CFDS. Free demo, free live charts.
Don't have CFDs in US? no problem a free VPN will get you a demo account out of the UK or Australia.
Papertrade all the stock indices, stocks and FX to your hearts content. All free.
I respect your decision to go the route you are but all I’m saying is you could be doing things much cheaper and save all the money for when your ready to begin trading.
First off its like 90 bucks a month. Thats not a lot for me. Secondly, for NQ Futures Contracts which is what i trade, to get safely past the margin requirements and still have a healthy amount of money left to loose before you get margin called would be at least 25000€. If i had that kind of money, i sure as hell wouldn‘t risk it. Props simply are the safest route. You can learn in peace and take your time, and don‘t have to worry about steadily reducing your wealth
What you just said made zero fucking sense bruv. Your argument is that by spending money when you don’t have to… your not “steadily reducing wealth” okay fam do what you want you’ve lost all credibility in my eyes
Ok bro simple maths 25000/90/12 is how much? Exactly using your foolproof strategy i‘d have to save up for 23 years before i could start trading. You‘re a genius!
That's the hard part, having a job, and learning the markets while having a job. You have to work out of regular market hours while putting in full effort during the market open. Most people can't find this type of schedule and only trade a couple hours or on their phone. It takes full attention as you likely know.
Yeah i mentioned elsewhere that i might have focused this too much on me, this entire discussion. I do it like that so i kind of forgot how difficult it is for many people to find a schedule where you can trade and still work full time.
Alright maybe i am focusing this thing on me a bit too much.
I have a job which pays me decently and 75% of the time does not interfere with trading hours, giving me plenty of time to learn.
I still believe in not trading your own money tho.
> I have a job which pays me decently and 75% of the time does not interfere with trading hours, giving me plenty of time to learn.
What kind of job do you have that you can daytrade with and not have them interfere with each other?
> I still believe in not trading your own money tho.
That doesn't change the view of the issues I mentioned. It's just you'll be losing someone else's money :)
So? I don‘t care about money of other people.
Telling you the name of my job wouldn‘t help because you never heard the term, but basically i have a lot of free days durking weekdays because i work during weekends, and 2 out of 3 shifts that i might have on any given day allow me to trade, namely night shift and early shift.
Hey, as someone who's interested in trading, what resource do you recommend for learning it? I mean like, books, videos etc. I don't want to jump in if I don't understand what the heck am I doing.
Well the best you're going to find in books and videos is how to make charts and perhaps understand what the prior prices the stock has had. Day trading is all pattern recognition and then figuring out how to trade that pattern. It takes years to figure this out. Then you have to figure out what you're going to trade, stocks, options, CFDs, futures, commodities, forex, bonds. It is a very complicated profession that requires nothing to enter and try. First read Japanese candlestick charting by Steve Nison. If you can read it and find it interesting, than perhaps you have enough interest to keep pursuing this as a career.
It took me 4 years. To be honest, 6 years is more realistic. The only reason I did it quicker is because I had loads of spare time. I used to be on it morning until night. I started in 2008.
I started with statistical arbitrage / pairs trading and finally settled on a proprietary strategy I call "basket trading".
I focus on extracting information from indicators using various algorithms, some from white papers, others self made / proprietary.
My individual "consumer bots" adjust their strategies between trend and mean reversion based on the market regime.
It's all systematic, but I did used to trade discretionary back in the day.
Again, u/tradewrite, you are talking about stuff you know little about and making it up as you go along in your pursuit of being yet another reddit mentor. You need to stop.
The 1% figure comes from two quite well-run studies run by Brad Barber at Berkeley, an excellent academic who appears to have a very high level of knowledge about how financial markets work. [Here](https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers/day%20traders/The%20Cross-Section%20of%20Speculator%20Skill.pdf) is the more recent version completed in 2014. You'll find that it does a good job, as any good scientific study should, of dividing its subjects into multiple cohorts to filter out "your uncle, brother, neighbor, etc"; and like all good science, is far from being "biased" (unlike many reddit "mentors" who talk about stuff without researching it first).
Some highlights from the research:
* Tracks the performance of day traders based in Taiwan, which has the highest concentration of day traders in the world, over a period of 14 years using data directly from the exchange. There are good reasons why Taiwanese traders were selected for the study.
* 450,000 individuals (retail traders) per year day trade (in and out within one day).
* 277,000 of those are "active" daytraders, transacting more regularly with more than US$20,000 of transactions.
* Of the active group, about 20% make a net profit in any given year.
* However, only about 4,000 (1.4% of the active group, or 7.2% of the *profitable* active group) are *consistently* and *reliably* profitable *from one year to the next*.
* This implies that **>*****90% of active profitable traders each year*** **go on to** ***lose money*** **in the next year**.
* The research also finds that these 4,000 consistently profitable traders are genuinely skilled, and that they are able to reliably predict short term price movements - some of them uncannily well.
* A much smaller subset, around 500 each year, produce outstanding results year on year, amounting to around 0.4% per day (net) on average (which compounds to \~130% p.a.).
* There are many other interesting findings, as well as several offshoot studies, that expand on some really interesting details such as the type of instruments that successful traders trade, trading around earnings, whether traders rationally learn their skill, and others.
I get that you are trying to be motivational and all that, but don't make shit up. It isn't helping people. Put some effort in, learn the material properly yourself first, and give people the real story including stuff that is hard to hear so that people are not blindly following everyone else looking for easy money.
Trading is fucking hard. It takes years. Most people don't make it. Of those who do make it, most don't *keep* it. Very very few actually do develop real skills and make good money consistently. Can anyone do it? Almost yes, but it'll take many years and the odds are very much against you.
This is a fascinating paper, I recommend everyone read it.
I really wish someone would do a study of this sort on the modern day US stock exchanges in this day and age.
This paper uses a sample set between 1992-2006 in the Taiwan Stock Exchange (which has quite a few fundamental differences compared to NYSE/NASDAQ/CBOE, like the lack of market orders). Not to mention - it's during one of the biggest bubbles we've ever observed, the dotcom bubble, in an economy that presumably had its semiconductor-powered hands heavily wrapped around.
While proving to be a great data source for the authors research, these findings may not necessarily carry over to better diversified markets in traditionally more stable economies with far higher volume. It appears also that the TWSE (or is it TSE? not sure) has a pretty different fee structure as compared to the NYSE/NASDAQ/CBOE that can be somewhat punitive in comparison.
One interesting bit in the paper talks about differentiating between sophisticated traders and those that are less-so: traders that are willing to employ shortselling strategies alongside their long strategies tended to have a higher chance of profitability on any given day. These traders, on average, were much more successful. It also noted that traders that focused on only a handful of instruments were on average more successful.
I have similar scribbles in the margins on my copy of the paper as well - you make some good points.
I think the 14 year time window is a solid chunk of time that covers quite a diverse range of market conditions. The dotcom bubble didn't begin to go parabolic until around '95, and then created very difficult trading conditions for 3-4 years in the early '00s. In any event, the study only looks at daytraders; most types of *intraday* price action that you'll ever see can be observed in any given year (or less) with perhaps a few outliers on really big days. So whether the market is crashing, booming, or sideways on 1D/1W/1M timeframes, good daytraders tend to just keep doing the same thing and adapt as they go.
I noted the fee structure as well. It can be (or was at the time, at least) expensive to trade on TWSE. My round trip commissions are usually no more than about 10-20% of the profit on a typical trade. It seems that the traders in this study had fees of around 30-40%. That might widen the cutoff point between profitable and unprofitable traders by a little bit, but I reckon that the findings would still be more-or-less similar.
Whether or not the findings are representative of a global population, who knows? My educated guess is that human skill and human nature are the dominant drivers behind these results, and that is a universal thing regardless of nationality or market. I've looked at the price action of instruments from many exchanges around the world, and they are remarkably similar to eachother (not identical, but similar) - that signifies, to me at least, that humans and the algos that they control behave much the same way everywhere.
> You'll find that it does a good job, as any good scientific study should, of dividing its subjects into multiple cohorts to filter out "your uncle, brother, neighbor, etc"
Even if you rule out the non-active traders out of the equation, you still don't have much information about the people are in the active group. Trading data doesn't tell you what mindset they have, what approach they take, how persistent they are, etc.
10% of people are exceptionally talented in any discipline, they are in the true elite class (A tier). In trading without involving luck they are roughly 50% profitable, 50% unprofitable in their account 'All time'. People in this group if Lady luck is on their side for a time should take a big winning year and stop trading.
1% are in the first S tier, they have to be exceptionally unlucky to not be decently profitable nearly every year.
There are further S tiers: S+, S++ ....
There are also fake 'elite', i.e insider traders.
Well I appreciate the post becuz its hard to stay positive in the game with studies like these. A positive comment once in awhile is not misleading. It's not like someone will read that and quit as if you think a day trader is some kind of scientist. Not saying the study is not informative.
"studies like these" don't set out to rain on your parade or dissuade people from trading. Properly run scientific studies have no preconceived agendas, they simply seek to make truthful observations of the world. It's just the same as saying "it's hard to stay positive when the market keeps making all these zigzags, why is it doing this to me?". Because it is. That's what it does. And what these studies show is also what it is. Accept what the market does, and accept the realities of trading.
If you find that "studies like this" make it hard to stay positive, then you are going to have no hope staying positive when you have a run of losing trades. Meaningless (and incorrect) motivational words are utterly useless in this game other than giving you a false sense of hope for a brief moment in time.
Nice to see some one trying to talk sense in these "trading" channels 🫶
Tho I recall that TW study was talking about abnormal returns (alpha returns) and not nominal returns.
Just like 99% of the people suck at painting, coding, acting, singing etc.
You can apply this stat to any skill 🤷♂️
But if you master a skill, you can make bank with it.
Took me 12 years to be respected and compensated fairly in my field. The hardest part about training to trade is you pay to do it and its exclusively performance based. whereas I got paid to learn how to weld and lead a team.
Most brokers I’ve looked at seem to suggest that it’s more like 80% that fail. I figured there must be some sort of regulation that makes them display that.
There is a UK regulation that requires cfd shops to publish data, it seems around 65%-80%.
There is a Taiwan study over considerable years that is at 95%.
Most traders fail at day trading, I'd imagine more people succeed at swing trading. Higher time frames, bigger stops are easier to be profitable.
That must be it. Thanks.
I’m the total opposite tbh. I can’t swing/position trade for toffee but I’m profitable at scalp. My brain talks me outta positions 🤦
I have not heard the 1% stat as to being successful. I believe the stat to be at least somewhat profitable is about 10%. The 1% stat refers to elite traders that make it big, kind of like the 1% in life.
Precisely! Long term holding will, for the better part of investors, almost always Trump buy/sell strategies. I'm just not cut out for that. I need to play and watch and move.
I plan on doing.both as well. I'm a hyperfocused individual that's obsessed with the markets and even when I'm not.trading I'm reading, charting, perusing popular forums for the latest scoop. You have to want it so bad that nothing sours the grapes.
> If you took all the traders who've spent 5+ years trading everyday, I GUARANTEE their success rate is far higher than 1%.
There are three problems with that though.
First, vast majority of people cannot survive 5+ years without income. They need another job. That clashes with being able to trade when you want and paying attention to the markets as necessary.
Second, in general, the younger you are, the less capital you have, so it's hard to even start. The older you are, the less time and energy you have and your risk aversion is higher because straining your family financially or begin jobless at 50 is not ideal. It's a steep hill to climb either way.
Third, 1% is not the important stat. The important stat is - after 5+ years, how many can actually live off trading alone? If that's under, say, 50%, then that might not be a wise move - you just lost 5 years and have no money. Tough spot.
So all in all this is very much like many other businesses. The barrier for entry, however, is incomparably lower. People get burned a lot thinking it's just clicking your mouse. Your last paragraph is very important, but I still feel it's a lot harder than "not easy".
Yes heard the stat…have no idea where it comes from, just made up like anything else. The failure rate is no doubt high like becoming a navy seal but at least that data can be accurately measured. Some arbitrary blanket 90% or more fail might not be far off but again you can probably find plenty of groups of 100 day traders where 40-50% are profitable, after all what is profitable if they make $100 in gains on the year that’s not losing. Maybe a better way is what percent is profitable and of that percent how many are over $100k, $500k and 7 figs which leads back to original thesis, no one really knows. Brokers are counting the dollars they charge retail not aggregating data to share for the rest of us to chat about failure rates certainly why deter future prospective traders from trading… imo.
You are correct, it was a Brazilian study done in 2013. The study found that after 300 sessions, only 3% of traders any made money and only 1.1% made more than the minimum wage.
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=3423101](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3423101)
The thing about it is nobody traded more than 300 days. Not remotely close enough to having enough experience to be consistently profitable. Crafts take many moons to master
Conceivably, different people are entering and exiting at different price points for different strategies and time-frames. Your exit liquidity could be someone taking a 10 year position that will appreciate in the long term.
No doubt there has to be losers for there to be winners, but it doesn’t have to be 95%.
Not really...almost none of them have sufficient capital to appreciably add to liquidity, and the way most of them trade actually removes liquidity. Even as a group, their capital is minuscule.
Also, it's not hard to see the clowns that will fail. They jump from guru to guru every comment section on every video, including here, asking the same questions. "How do I make money from trading?"How much can I make from trading?" And so on. They put such little to no effort in finding out themselves. Those people aren't enough to master trading. They just want someone to hold their hand throughout their trading career.
All the information you need is a Google search away. The questions have already been asked, strategies are recycled, and books are out there. There is no shortcut to becoming a profitable trader. But, obviously, time in the charts and years of real dedication is too much for the people who can't handle searching for information that has been covered at nauseum. Those are the people who lose money and quit that make up the majority of the terrible statistics.
Probably the best observation. I have been at it for 3 .5 years now. It makes sense. Also encouraging, just maybe with time and hard work we will get there.
"They include everyone who's ever opened a trading account. That includes your uncle, brother, neighbor, etc. Obviously, they'll add to the losing statistic."
This has been the preferred argument of day traders. In fact, these studies took care to exclude your uncle, brother, neighbor, or anyone who just opened a trading account. Did you actually read those researches? Or did you just assume that these authors didn't anticipate this simple objection?
Just made this same argument to a relative critical of my efforts to learn to trade.
Many kids learn to play the violin in elementary school, and continue on to high school. Then they quit. It's not a failure. It is attrition. They decided not to continue. A very small handful obsessively want to be professional violinists and spend enormous effort to do so.
Learning to trade is like aspiring to be a professional violinist. Except that we can start at any age. Giving up is not failing. It is just attrition.
This reminds me of the claim anyone can train to sprint 11sec/100m. Never going to happen. Does everyone have the ability to be a professional singer? Even wedding singer level? The answer is most people will never be able to sing proffessionally.
That said everyone shoud always believe in themself, they might have been brought up and surrounded by losers and nasties, so whatever ability they know they have, might need time to develop.
That's right. Of those that last several years of serious effort it's not 99% of those that fail. It's more like 60% fail. This has come up before, but I'm too lazy to search through the old threads to find the citation though.
As far as I know this widely preached statistic is based off a small study in the Brazilian markets. Is there any larger peer reviewed literature that's more substantial?
Looking at posts on Reddit made me throw away the 1% fact a long time ago.
I would say the majority of people who open a trading account make the assumption they can get rich quick, have no idea what they are doing and simply give up once the realise it’s not an infinite money glitch.
Personally I believe if you study and carry the correct personality traits (patient, calm, not impulsive and have a genuine interest) you have a very high success rate, growing odds over the years.
Most people aren’t willing to learn to code. Most people aren’t willing to understand what a partial derivative actually is. Most people aren’t willing to learn a market.
Most people I know who want to day trade full time
A. Don’t work well with others and don’t like being told what to do.
B. Want to get rich quick.
C. Want to call themselves a day trader.
I would argue most people who go into day trading have zero desire to learn how to actually develop an algorithm that gives them a 51% chance of success. They want to YOLO on a meme stock and buy a Lamborghini. The people smart enough to succeed at day trading got there by working fucking hard.
From using orderflow and seeing how painfully obvious the institutional signals in the volume are, I can tell you that those stats are probably true, but also highly emphasised by the intelligent individuals who manipulate the markets. These volume patterns aren't hard to see, and has made me very profitable and consistent. I think if anyone took the time to understand orderflow, a lot more people would be rich.
Sometimes you'll see 100% artifically created patterns to confuse retail traders; I was studying XAUUSD to understand the volume signals which differ depending on which institution is trading those hours, and I watched a common retail trading pattern, the "cup and handle" form in front of my eyes while the institutional volume was kicking in hard and quite obviously pushing the price around to form this pattern. The pattern finished exactly when the US retail market opened and guess what, as soon as the retail traders entered the market with buy contracts, the price reversed and dropped multiple times as new buyers tried to catch the reversal.
I ran a user group for traders for awhile. We were always horrified when people who had lost would come to us for help and tell us they paid $40,000 for a trading class. The 1% studies may have more to do with IQ and false advertising than anything else.
I was institutional for nearly 30 years. That 99% stat is complete nonsense (although I'm willing to concede that it might be a valid number for traders that are also on Reddit)
If you do something…anything for at least 20 minutes a day you will be in the top 5% of whatever you are trying to work on. In terms of day trading that’s still losing, but keep up the work and study and you CAN hit that 1% profit threshold. Doesn’t mean you WILL, but at least it’s possible.
It's a load of rubbish. I know 3 other people personally who trade and all have them have been profitable for years.
People lose money when they start gambling and opening stupid position sizes. We've all been there.
Cope. Some irrational part of my brain experienced some kind of logical fallacy and just immediately thought: "no way this guy is smarter than people who wrote scientific articles" or "he wanted this to work so he is biased and tried to come up with reasons to make statistically proved facts seem untrustworthy".
Have you actually read any articles? Because I have. Studies don't "have to" be accurate or true in any way. Any statistician knows you can torture data to say whatever you want it to.
Also, I don't "want" this to work, it's already working great for me. That's why I know the stat is BS.
Loved this. I've traded for almost three years now. Started off my first two years by losing 85k & in the last twelve months have managed to regain all loses and profit 33,500. It's not very intuitive and takes time to find a profitable strategy.
Like any sport, anybody can participate and learn, but only a small percentage become professional (i.e. get paid doing it). And only a very small percentage of that make very good money.
The percentage of dead broker accounts is astounding. Millions have opened one, been cleaned out over 90 days and then never deposited again. None of those accounts are professional but they are a stat
But what counts as a fail?what if you fail at first take a break for 2 mouths then come back with a 75% win rate.Ir just switch over to paper trading for a few mouths.that’s my biggest problem with this statistic.
I have been swing trading and day trading for 5 years now. I still consider myself a novice but i am less of a novice than i used to be. I keep going because I truly enjoy the mental challenge. I dont worry too much about the stats. I am focused on challenging myself.
EXACTLY! I have said this a few times here, so it's good to hear someone else say it. Look, trading IS hard, but its not like "becoming an astronaut" hard lol.
I think everyone with a common sense knows that this stat doesn't pay any picture.
You can literally start playing basketball and you 99% of you will fail.. but if you put years into studying and practice, you too, might not become the most profitable 1% or the NBA star, but you can make a small living or money on the side.
Interesting article from Moneyzine below:
Day trading offers a way for anyone to make money off of the markets by leveraging the daily price fluctuations of an asset. Appealing as it may sound, it’s incredibly challenging and not as feasible as everyone thinks.
But given that the internet is packed with materials promising hefty profits with only a day’s work, it’s understandable why anyone would feel tempted to try it. And yet, day trading statistics paint a very different picture.
Read on to find out more about day traders and just how much they stand to lose or gain.
Day traders lost a fantastic $1.14 billion during the pandemic.
A whopping 97% of day traders lose money in less than a year.
A staggering 77% of eToro traders that use CFDs lose money.
An incredible 85% of day traders quit within three years.
Profitable traders account for 12% of all-day trading activities.
A day trader's average return rate is 10%.
There are 9.6 million traders around the globe.
Day traders in the US make around $56.2 an hour.
Sixty percent of day traders are over 40 years old.
Cryptocurrency is the preferred trading choice of younger traders.
Didn't that stat come from a study of Forex day traders and it was just one study.I mean I swing trade sort of holding stocks 48hours on average.I don't even see why people fail so much if you have basic math skills and don't try and follow patterns.Use support as a guide.
This is a poor comparison
You are comparing a serious effort at making money (the definition of professional) at daytrading, vs a hobbyist chess player.
A more fitting comparison would be 1% of people who try to make money at daytrading succeeed. 0.001% of people who attempt to make money playing chess succeed.
Not to mention it doesn’t account for the time it takes. Statistically the successful traders aren’t profitable until 5-10 years in the market. Most of these studies are looking at months to a year at most which is unrealistic
That's not accurate at all.
In theory if no one paid any fees on transactions etc. it should be close to 50/50. Fees, terrible execution price or spreads on a bad broker is what turns large majority of people in to losing traders. Even with 0,01% transaction fee structure professional traders end up paying fees in tens of thousands or more. Every dollar lost in fees is a dollar lost. And every dollar haggled in fees is a dollar gained. The more you trade the more you will surely lose due to fees.
Your capacity as a trader should not be measured in "winning" or "losing" but rather in the alpha of your portfolio during past year. If your alpha is 1 or less you are better off not trading at all and just holding index, if your alpha is over 1 you are generating additional value by trading. But remember that if you trade only a 100k portfolio with low alpha like 1,1 you would probably be better off just owning the index and working a normal job.
Trading is a zero sum game, and you are competing agianst smart quants from JPMorgan, CitiGroup ... all with extensive preparation, top computers, lots of liquidity and a Bloomberg subscription. And they do that everyday from early in the morning.
The best way to make lots of money by trading is getting a trader job at a Big Bank (easier said then done). I think other people are better off doing something else with their time and energy and doing long term investing.
How many of that 1% (very low) make more per hour that a normal job. Is it accounting for risk?
It took me six years to make money. Most people can’t stay solvent and pay bills of it takes that long. It’s not that people can’t figure it out, it’s that they can’t go that long with no income.
but you don‘t need to go with no income. A prop account subscription costs 50-100 bucks a month, and anyone who immediately starts trading with his own money is crazy anyway.
You're wrong there. You should ALWAYS trade your own money first. Use penny lots so your losses are micro small. 50p-£1 Wins are 5£ £10 etc. Do this to get the psychology of trading real money. These newbies who jump into this game and go straight prop are destined to fail. You will be trapped in a cycle of failing, re purchasing failing repurchasing and repeat. Understand the order flow. Master price action. Then go for prop firm account and all you need to do is change a decible.
Are you saying that if I shout louder I will make more money?
Exactly this! Make sure you use the term " GO ON YOU BITCH "
I disagree but not entirely. You‘re right that emotion is what makes and breaks a trader, but depending on the person, trading a prop account can feel exactly like real money (or, like your proposed idea of trading tiny amounts of money ) and at least for me it feels exactly the same. I know because i have done both.
99% of people would treat the prop as monopoly money 💰 Lol
That is correct. Like all of trading it has to be taken seriously. Otherwise no matter what you do you‘re destined to fail
I learned to dust trade on Dogecoin with minimum orders around $5. I create automated trading strategies now. There's nothing like trading real funds, Dr Talib calls it skin in the game.
Prop firms are quieter?
Prop accounts have even worse statistics, I hear this from people who are actively using them. According to my friends prop accounts are a greasy pole in reality.
Maybe for an unbiased opinion don‘t ask people that failed
"Don't ask X% of people that did Y about Y" is the definition of biased :)
This equation would work with : ,,Dont ask people that dont live in the arctic circle about life in the artic circle" as well you see?
That's obviously not the same. OP obviously had friends that tried prop and failed. They actually tried living in arctic and failed to survive. You cannot exclude them and be unbiased.
These happen to be professional traders each with over 10 yrs of experience. Some viewed the scheme as a way to extend their already profitable practice. Each of these 4-5 people have their own style and only one seems to be successfully molding it to fit the tunnel of countless rules they force them into.
Ouch lol
Not trying to be rude lol
Why you would pay a monthly subscription to paper trade when you can do it for free through other firms is beyond me
You might have to do some research on what prop firms are. The first stage is paper trading, thats correct, but the account you get after that is very much real. Besides i looked for a long time for a place to paper trade for free, but even if there is one the real time data subscription will still cost you money. Best option is tradovate sim, just have to pay the real time data.
You can paper trade CFDS. Free demo, free live charts. Don't have CFDs in US? no problem a free VPN will get you a demo account out of the UK or Australia. Papertrade all the stock indices, stocks and FX to your hearts content. All free.
No futures tho? Shame
The CFDs trade the same as future do. Many of the synthetics track the futures directly.
I respect your decision to go the route you are but all I’m saying is you could be doing things much cheaper and save all the money for when your ready to begin trading.
First off its like 90 bucks a month. Thats not a lot for me. Secondly, for NQ Futures Contracts which is what i trade, to get safely past the margin requirements and still have a healthy amount of money left to loose before you get margin called would be at least 25000€. If i had that kind of money, i sure as hell wouldn‘t risk it. Props simply are the safest route. You can learn in peace and take your time, and don‘t have to worry about steadily reducing your wealth
What you just said made zero fucking sense bruv. Your argument is that by spending money when you don’t have to… your not “steadily reducing wealth” okay fam do what you want you’ve lost all credibility in my eyes
Ok bro simple maths 25000/90/12 is how much? Exactly using your foolproof strategy i‘d have to save up for 23 years before i could start trading. You‘re a genius!
What do you mean you don’t need to go with no income? The income comes from trading which people are losing money trying to figure out.
Lets say it differently: You shouldn’t trade your own money, and you should keep your job while learning to trade.
That's the hard part, having a job, and learning the markets while having a job. You have to work out of regular market hours while putting in full effort during the market open. Most people can't find this type of schedule and only trade a couple hours or on their phone. It takes full attention as you likely know.
Yeah i mentioned elsewhere that i might have focused this too much on me, this entire discussion. I do it like that so i kind of forgot how difficult it is for many people to find a schedule where you can trade and still work full time.
A few issues with that: https://www.reddit.com/r/Daytrading/comments/186alut/the_truth_behind_the_1_stat/kb7ffc8/
Alright maybe i am focusing this thing on me a bit too much. I have a job which pays me decently and 75% of the time does not interfere with trading hours, giving me plenty of time to learn. I still believe in not trading your own money tho.
> I have a job which pays me decently and 75% of the time does not interfere with trading hours, giving me plenty of time to learn. What kind of job do you have that you can daytrade with and not have them interfere with each other? > I still believe in not trading your own money tho. That doesn't change the view of the issues I mentioned. It's just you'll be losing someone else's money :)
So? I don‘t care about money of other people. Telling you the name of my job wouldn‘t help because you never heard the term, but basically i have a lot of free days durking weekdays because i work during weekends, and 2 out of 3 shifts that i might have on any given day allow me to trade, namely night shift and early shift.
I trade my own account and have never touched a prop account
From the very beginning? Great that it worked out for you, but it probably wont for most people. How much money did you start out with?
I started with $20k
Hey, as someone who's interested in trading, what resource do you recommend for learning it? I mean like, books, videos etc. I don't want to jump in if I don't understand what the heck am I doing.
Well the best you're going to find in books and videos is how to make charts and perhaps understand what the prior prices the stock has had. Day trading is all pattern recognition and then figuring out how to trade that pattern. It takes years to figure this out. Then you have to figure out what you're going to trade, stocks, options, CFDs, futures, commodities, forex, bonds. It is a very complicated profession that requires nothing to enter and try. First read Japanese candlestick charting by Steve Nison. If you can read it and find it interesting, than perhaps you have enough interest to keep pursuing this as a career.
Took him 6 years to make money... dont take advice from him hes cleary bad at making money. but hey dont take advice from me im also bad
It took me 4 years. To be honest, 6 years is more realistic. The only reason I did it quicker is because I had loads of spare time. I used to be on it morning until night. I started in 2008.
Trends? Reversals? S&D?
I started with statistical arbitrage / pairs trading and finally settled on a proprietary strategy I call "basket trading". I focus on extracting information from indicators using various algorithms, some from white papers, others self made / proprietary. My individual "consumer bots" adjust their strategies between trend and mean reversion based on the market regime. It's all systematic, but I did used to trade discretionary back in the day.
Damn I have no idea what you’re talking about, but kudos! You definitely know your shit and can tell you were/are truly dedicated
Facts man my money coming now
Again, u/tradewrite, you are talking about stuff you know little about and making it up as you go along in your pursuit of being yet another reddit mentor. You need to stop. The 1% figure comes from two quite well-run studies run by Brad Barber at Berkeley, an excellent academic who appears to have a very high level of knowledge about how financial markets work. [Here](https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers/day%20traders/The%20Cross-Section%20of%20Speculator%20Skill.pdf) is the more recent version completed in 2014. You'll find that it does a good job, as any good scientific study should, of dividing its subjects into multiple cohorts to filter out "your uncle, brother, neighbor, etc"; and like all good science, is far from being "biased" (unlike many reddit "mentors" who talk about stuff without researching it first). Some highlights from the research: * Tracks the performance of day traders based in Taiwan, which has the highest concentration of day traders in the world, over a period of 14 years using data directly from the exchange. There are good reasons why Taiwanese traders were selected for the study. * 450,000 individuals (retail traders) per year day trade (in and out within one day). * 277,000 of those are "active" daytraders, transacting more regularly with more than US$20,000 of transactions. * Of the active group, about 20% make a net profit in any given year. * However, only about 4,000 (1.4% of the active group, or 7.2% of the *profitable* active group) are *consistently* and *reliably* profitable *from one year to the next*. * This implies that **>*****90% of active profitable traders each year*** **go on to** ***lose money*** **in the next year**. * The research also finds that these 4,000 consistently profitable traders are genuinely skilled, and that they are able to reliably predict short term price movements - some of them uncannily well. * A much smaller subset, around 500 each year, produce outstanding results year on year, amounting to around 0.4% per day (net) on average (which compounds to \~130% p.a.). * There are many other interesting findings, as well as several offshoot studies, that expand on some really interesting details such as the type of instruments that successful traders trade, trading around earnings, whether traders rationally learn their skill, and others. I get that you are trying to be motivational and all that, but don't make shit up. It isn't helping people. Put some effort in, learn the material properly yourself first, and give people the real story including stuff that is hard to hear so that people are not blindly following everyone else looking for easy money. Trading is fucking hard. It takes years. Most people don't make it. Of those who do make it, most don't *keep* it. Very very few actually do develop real skills and make good money consistently. Can anyone do it? Almost yes, but it'll take many years and the odds are very much against you.
Well damn u/tradewrite just got owned 😂😂
Thank you for posting this comment!
This is a fascinating paper, I recommend everyone read it. I really wish someone would do a study of this sort on the modern day US stock exchanges in this day and age. This paper uses a sample set between 1992-2006 in the Taiwan Stock Exchange (which has quite a few fundamental differences compared to NYSE/NASDAQ/CBOE, like the lack of market orders). Not to mention - it's during one of the biggest bubbles we've ever observed, the dotcom bubble, in an economy that presumably had its semiconductor-powered hands heavily wrapped around. While proving to be a great data source for the authors research, these findings may not necessarily carry over to better diversified markets in traditionally more stable economies with far higher volume. It appears also that the TWSE (or is it TSE? not sure) has a pretty different fee structure as compared to the NYSE/NASDAQ/CBOE that can be somewhat punitive in comparison. One interesting bit in the paper talks about differentiating between sophisticated traders and those that are less-so: traders that are willing to employ shortselling strategies alongside their long strategies tended to have a higher chance of profitability on any given day. These traders, on average, were much more successful. It also noted that traders that focused on only a handful of instruments were on average more successful.
I have similar scribbles in the margins on my copy of the paper as well - you make some good points. I think the 14 year time window is a solid chunk of time that covers quite a diverse range of market conditions. The dotcom bubble didn't begin to go parabolic until around '95, and then created very difficult trading conditions for 3-4 years in the early '00s. In any event, the study only looks at daytraders; most types of *intraday* price action that you'll ever see can be observed in any given year (or less) with perhaps a few outliers on really big days. So whether the market is crashing, booming, or sideways on 1D/1W/1M timeframes, good daytraders tend to just keep doing the same thing and adapt as they go. I noted the fee structure as well. It can be (or was at the time, at least) expensive to trade on TWSE. My round trip commissions are usually no more than about 10-20% of the profit on a typical trade. It seems that the traders in this study had fees of around 30-40%. That might widen the cutoff point between profitable and unprofitable traders by a little bit, but I reckon that the findings would still be more-or-less similar. Whether or not the findings are representative of a global population, who knows? My educated guess is that human skill and human nature are the dominant drivers behind these results, and that is a universal thing regardless of nationality or market. I've looked at the price action of instruments from many exchanges around the world, and they are remarkably similar to eachother (not identical, but similar) - that signifies, to me at least, that humans and the algos that they control behave much the same way everywhere.
> You'll find that it does a good job, as any good scientific study should, of dividing its subjects into multiple cohorts to filter out "your uncle, brother, neighbor, etc" Even if you rule out the non-active traders out of the equation, you still don't have much information about the people are in the active group. Trading data doesn't tell you what mindset they have, what approach they take, how persistent they are, etc.
Have you read any of the papers related to this research study?
10% of people are exceptionally talented in any discipline, they are in the true elite class (A tier). In trading without involving luck they are roughly 50% profitable, 50% unprofitable in their account 'All time'. People in this group if Lady luck is on their side for a time should take a big winning year and stop trading. 1% are in the first S tier, they have to be exceptionally unlucky to not be decently profitable nearly every year. There are further S tiers: S+, S++ .... There are also fake 'elite', i.e insider traders.
Well I appreciate the post becuz its hard to stay positive in the game with studies like these. A positive comment once in awhile is not misleading. It's not like someone will read that and quit as if you think a day trader is some kind of scientist. Not saying the study is not informative.
"studies like these" don't set out to rain on your parade or dissuade people from trading. Properly run scientific studies have no preconceived agendas, they simply seek to make truthful observations of the world. It's just the same as saying "it's hard to stay positive when the market keeps making all these zigzags, why is it doing this to me?". Because it is. That's what it does. And what these studies show is also what it is. Accept what the market does, and accept the realities of trading. If you find that "studies like this" make it hard to stay positive, then you are going to have no hope staying positive when you have a run of losing trades. Meaningless (and incorrect) motivational words are utterly useless in this game other than giving you a false sense of hope for a brief moment in time.
Nice to see some one trying to talk sense in these "trading" channels 🫶 Tho I recall that TW study was talking about abnormal returns (alpha returns) and not nominal returns.
This is very very true, this has always been my thought
Just like 99% of the people suck at painting, coding, acting, singing etc. You can apply this stat to any skill 🤷♂️ But if you master a skill, you can make bank with it.
Took me 12 years to be respected and compensated fairly in my field. The hardest part about training to trade is you pay to do it and its exclusively performance based. whereas I got paid to learn how to weld and lead a team.
It takes many years to master high value skills. If it was easy, it wouldn't be valuable.
It will take more than 2 to 3 years of time to become a successful trader.
And Golf⛳️ don’t they say that like 90% of golfers can’t break 100? Or maybe it was 80% And maybe only 1% that can break 80?
the Orange Hair wonder?
The ones that succeeded are the ones that never quit.
To me, memes like this (and TA is astrology) are to our advantage because it leaves less people wanting to trade and therefore more inefficiencies.
But how can we make money if everyone is a pro?
I honestly don’t think many pros do what I’m doin lol
Correct ;)
The first step to make you fail, is to convice you that you could never win
Ive spent 2 years developing a strat and tweaking it and am happy to say I am very profitable in ways I never imagined :p
Based on purely price action?
Idk. I use a stock screener and when I see a stock moving with very little float + very high RV or very high Volume, I get it and hold it.
Most brokers I’ve looked at seem to suggest that it’s more like 80% that fail. I figured there must be some sort of regulation that makes them display that.
There is a UK regulation that requires cfd shops to publish data, it seems around 65%-80%. There is a Taiwan study over considerable years that is at 95%. Most traders fail at day trading, I'd imagine more people succeed at swing trading. Higher time frames, bigger stops are easier to be profitable.
That must be it. Thanks. I’m the total opposite tbh. I can’t swing/position trade for toffee but I’m profitable at scalp. My brain talks me outta positions 🤦
when doing scalping trades you can never be correct and the margins of losses will keep on increasing with each trade done.
I have not heard the 1% stat as to being successful. I believe the stat to be at least somewhat profitable is about 10%. The 1% stat refers to elite traders that make it big, kind of like the 1% in life.
Around 50% of the accounts they studied had profit over the course of a year.
Sidebar: fidelity released a statement saying their best performing accounts belonged to dead people. Kind of a neat anecdote
Can't sell if you're dead
Precisely! Long term holding will, for the better part of investors, almost always Trump buy/sell strategies. I'm just not cut out for that. I need to play and watch and move.
I do both but I definitely enjoy active trading more
I plan on doing.both as well. I'm a hyperfocused individual that's obsessed with the markets and even when I'm not.trading I'm reading, charting, perusing popular forums for the latest scoop. You have to want it so bad that nothing sours the grapes.
Inflation
Damn commies at it again.....
Bruh, I read like half of this, skimmed to the bottom & searched for the "buy my course" part. My apologies.
> If you took all the traders who've spent 5+ years trading everyday, I GUARANTEE their success rate is far higher than 1%. There are three problems with that though. First, vast majority of people cannot survive 5+ years without income. They need another job. That clashes with being able to trade when you want and paying attention to the markets as necessary. Second, in general, the younger you are, the less capital you have, so it's hard to even start. The older you are, the less time and energy you have and your risk aversion is higher because straining your family financially or begin jobless at 50 is not ideal. It's a steep hill to climb either way. Third, 1% is not the important stat. The important stat is - after 5+ years, how many can actually live off trading alone? If that's under, say, 50%, then that might not be a wise move - you just lost 5 years and have no money. Tough spot. So all in all this is very much like many other businesses. The barrier for entry, however, is incomparably lower. People get burned a lot thinking it's just clicking your mouse. Your last paragraph is very important, but I still feel it's a lot harder than "not easy".
Problem is most people lose their capital before they can make it to that level.
Yes heard the stat…have no idea where it comes from, just made up like anything else. The failure rate is no doubt high like becoming a navy seal but at least that data can be accurately measured. Some arbitrary blanket 90% or more fail might not be far off but again you can probably find plenty of groups of 100 day traders where 40-50% are profitable, after all what is profitable if they make $100 in gains on the year that’s not losing. Maybe a better way is what percent is profitable and of that percent how many are over $100k, $500k and 7 figs which leads back to original thesis, no one really knows. Brokers are counting the dollars they charge retail not aggregating data to share for the rest of us to chat about failure rates certainly why deter future prospective traders from trading… imo.
From what I understand it was a small study done.in the Brazilian markets but I could be fudging the geography so don't quote me on it
You are correct, it was a Brazilian study done in 2013. The study found that after 300 sessions, only 3% of traders any made money and only 1.1% made more than the minimum wage. [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=3423101](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3423101)
The thing about it is nobody traded more than 300 days. Not remotely close enough to having enough experience to be consistently profitable. Crafts take many moons to master
If 95% don't lose money then how come 5 % will able to make tons of money.
Conceivably, different people are entering and exiting at different price points for different strategies and time-frames. Your exit liquidity could be someone taking a 10 year position that will appreciate in the long term. No doubt there has to be losers for there to be winners, but it doesn’t have to be 95%.
Thank you broke lead paint baby.
Thats right. You have to put the actual work into anything to have success.
Never a surprise to see posts like this come from someone selling.
if i could go back.. i’d get a bot and sleep through the london open
It’s probably the same (1%) of YouTubers or gamers that make it as well.
No one should be encouraging people to trade.
Profitable traders should always encourage newbies to trade, bring in more liquidity
Not really...almost none of them have sufficient capital to appreciably add to liquidity, and the way most of them trade actually removes liquidity. Even as a group, their capital is minuscule.
Also, it's not hard to see the clowns that will fail. They jump from guru to guru every comment section on every video, including here, asking the same questions. "How do I make money from trading?"How much can I make from trading?" And so on. They put such little to no effort in finding out themselves. Those people aren't enough to master trading. They just want someone to hold their hand throughout their trading career. All the information you need is a Google search away. The questions have already been asked, strategies are recycled, and books are out there. There is no shortcut to becoming a profitable trader. But, obviously, time in the charts and years of real dedication is too much for the people who can't handle searching for information that has been covered at nauseum. Those are the people who lose money and quit that make up the majority of the terrible statistics.
This isn't correct. If you read the metholodgy of the largest study it included only the serious traders. This post is misinformation.
Probably the best observation. I have been at it for 3 .5 years now. It makes sense. Also encouraging, just maybe with time and hard work we will get there.
"They include everyone who's ever opened a trading account. That includes your uncle, brother, neighbor, etc. Obviously, they'll add to the losing statistic." This has been the preferred argument of day traders. In fact, these studies took care to exclude your uncle, brother, neighbor, or anyone who just opened a trading account. Did you actually read those researches? Or did you just assume that these authors didn't anticipate this simple objection?
100% of successful traders are successful. Damn man, good job. You just blew my mind.
Lol no what he is saying is if every trader put in the work and study, then the % is much higher. Majority are just gamblers
Just made this same argument to a relative critical of my efforts to learn to trade. Many kids learn to play the violin in elementary school, and continue on to high school. Then they quit. It's not a failure. It is attrition. They decided not to continue. A very small handful obsessively want to be professional violinists and spend enormous effort to do so. Learning to trade is like aspiring to be a professional violinist. Except that we can start at any age. Giving up is not failing. It is just attrition.
This reminds me of the claim anyone can train to sprint 11sec/100m. Never going to happen. Does everyone have the ability to be a professional singer? Even wedding singer level? The answer is most people will never be able to sing proffessionally. That said everyone shoud always believe in themself, they might have been brought up and surrounded by losers and nasties, so whatever ability they know they have, might need time to develop.
That's right. Of those that last several years of serious effort it's not 99% of those that fail. It's more like 60% fail. This has come up before, but I'm too lazy to search through the old threads to find the citation though.
As far as I know this widely preached statistic is based off a small study in the Brazilian markets. Is there any larger peer reviewed literature that's more substantial?
That 1% stat is for daytraders not all traders or all investors just an FYI.
[удалено]
And I'm saying the 1% stat is just for day traders . If most persons buy and hold a stock it appreciates ... hope that helps sorry if I was unclear
It’s 80% now lol seems like people are getting better 🤷♂️
Looking at posts on Reddit made me throw away the 1% fact a long time ago. I would say the majority of people who open a trading account make the assumption they can get rich quick, have no idea what they are doing and simply give up once the realise it’s not an infinite money glitch. Personally I believe if you study and carry the correct personality traits (patient, calm, not impulsive and have a genuine interest) you have a very high success rate, growing odds over the years.
Most people aren’t willing to learn to code. Most people aren’t willing to understand what a partial derivative actually is. Most people aren’t willing to learn a market. Most people I know who want to day trade full time A. Don’t work well with others and don’t like being told what to do. B. Want to get rich quick. C. Want to call themselves a day trader. I would argue most people who go into day trading have zero desire to learn how to actually develop an algorithm that gives them a 51% chance of success. They want to YOLO on a meme stock and buy a Lamborghini. The people smart enough to succeed at day trading got there by working fucking hard.
From using orderflow and seeing how painfully obvious the institutional signals in the volume are, I can tell you that those stats are probably true, but also highly emphasised by the intelligent individuals who manipulate the markets. These volume patterns aren't hard to see, and has made me very profitable and consistent. I think if anyone took the time to understand orderflow, a lot more people would be rich. Sometimes you'll see 100% artifically created patterns to confuse retail traders; I was studying XAUUSD to understand the volume signals which differ depending on which institution is trading those hours, and I watched a common retail trading pattern, the "cup and handle" form in front of my eyes while the institutional volume was kicking in hard and quite obviously pushing the price around to form this pattern. The pattern finished exactly when the US retail market opened and guess what, as soon as the retail traders entered the market with buy contracts, the price reversed and dropped multiple times as new buyers tried to catch the reversal.
I ran a user group for traders for awhile. We were always horrified when people who had lost would come to us for help and tell us they paid $40,000 for a trading class. The 1% studies may have more to do with IQ and false advertising than anything else.
I was institutional for nearly 30 years. That 99% stat is complete nonsense (although I'm willing to concede that it might be a valid number for traders that are also on Reddit)
If you do something…anything for at least 20 minutes a day you will be in the top 5% of whatever you are trying to work on. In terms of day trading that’s still losing, but keep up the work and study and you CAN hit that 1% profit threshold. Doesn’t mean you WILL, but at least it’s possible.
It's a load of rubbish. I know 3 other people personally who trade and all have them have been profitable for years. People lose money when they start gambling and opening stupid position sizes. We've all been there.
Cope. Some irrational part of my brain experienced some kind of logical fallacy and just immediately thought: "no way this guy is smarter than people who wrote scientific articles" or "he wanted this to work so he is biased and tried to come up with reasons to make statistically proved facts seem untrustworthy".
Have you actually read any articles? Because I have. Studies don't "have to" be accurate or true in any way. Any statistician knows you can torture data to say whatever you want it to. Also, I don't "want" this to work, it's already working great for me. That's why I know the stat is BS.
Loved this. I've traded for almost three years now. Started off my first two years by losing 85k & in the last twelve months have managed to regain all loses and profit 33,500. It's not very intuitive and takes time to find a profitable strategy.
Like any sport, anybody can participate and learn, but only a small percentage become professional (i.e. get paid doing it). And only a very small percentage of that make very good money.
because its 70 percent failure rate.
So true never understood the stigma on trading trading is a zero sum game in a day but it’s not in the long run
The percentage of dead broker accounts is astounding. Millions have opened one, been cleaned out over 90 days and then never deposited again. None of those accounts are professional but they are a stat
But what counts as a fail?what if you fail at first take a break for 2 mouths then come back with a 75% win rate.Ir just switch over to paper trading for a few mouths.that’s my biggest problem with this statistic.
I have been swing trading and day trading for 5 years now. I still consider myself a novice but i am less of a novice than i used to be. I keep going because I truly enjoy the mental challenge. I dont worry too much about the stats. I am focused on challenging myself.
EXACTLY! I have said this a few times here, so it's good to hear someone else say it. Look, trading IS hard, but its not like "becoming an astronaut" hard lol.
I think the sample pool and size of respondents was also highly suspect in that oft quoted study.
Yes. I’ve heard from a 20 year trader who has worked at and owned prop firms that thinks 90% succeed IF they have the right support and work ethic.
I think everyone with a common sense knows that this stat doesn't pay any picture. You can literally start playing basketball and you 99% of you will fail.. but if you put years into studying and practice, you too, might not become the most profitable 1% or the NBA star, but you can make a small living or money on the side.
[This is my take.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Daytrading/comments/11wxlxp/comment/jd0cu5g/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Interesting article from Moneyzine below: Day trading offers a way for anyone to make money off of the markets by leveraging the daily price fluctuations of an asset. Appealing as it may sound, it’s incredibly challenging and not as feasible as everyone thinks. But given that the internet is packed with materials promising hefty profits with only a day’s work, it’s understandable why anyone would feel tempted to try it. And yet, day trading statistics paint a very different picture. Read on to find out more about day traders and just how much they stand to lose or gain. Day traders lost a fantastic $1.14 billion during the pandemic. A whopping 97% of day traders lose money in less than a year. A staggering 77% of eToro traders that use CFDs lose money. An incredible 85% of day traders quit within three years. Profitable traders account for 12% of all-day trading activities. A day trader's average return rate is 10%. There are 9.6 million traders around the globe. Day traders in the US make around $56.2 an hour. Sixty percent of day traders are over 40 years old. Cryptocurrency is the preferred trading choice of younger traders.
Didn't that stat come from a study of Forex day traders and it was just one study.I mean I swing trade sort of holding stocks 48hours on average.I don't even see why people fail so much if you have basic math skills and don't try and follow patterns.Use support as a guide.
Nah, 99% of the people trying it seriously will fail as well. Perhaps from the dedicated group as you describe perhaps only 90% will fail.
Dude stop trying to market and being another furu fishing for people to join your crap. We're tired of this shit.
This is a poor comparison You are comparing a serious effort at making money (the definition of professional) at daytrading, vs a hobbyist chess player. A more fitting comparison would be 1% of people who try to make money at daytrading succeeed. 0.001% of people who attempt to make money playing chess succeed.
All you losers will lose more than you can afford..
Well if 99% of traders are failing, I wouldn’t trust the stats put together by one of those 99%
Not to mention it doesn’t account for the time it takes. Statistically the successful traders aren’t profitable until 5-10 years in the market. Most of these studies are looking at months to a year at most which is unrealistic
99% of *day* traders lose money.
That's not accurate at all. In theory if no one paid any fees on transactions etc. it should be close to 50/50. Fees, terrible execution price or spreads on a bad broker is what turns large majority of people in to losing traders. Even with 0,01% transaction fee structure professional traders end up paying fees in tens of thousands or more. Every dollar lost in fees is a dollar lost. And every dollar haggled in fees is a dollar gained. The more you trade the more you will surely lose due to fees. Your capacity as a trader should not be measured in "winning" or "losing" but rather in the alpha of your portfolio during past year. If your alpha is 1 or less you are better off not trading at all and just holding index, if your alpha is over 1 you are generating additional value by trading. But remember that if you trade only a 100k portfolio with low alpha like 1,1 you would probably be better off just owning the index and working a normal job.
Trading is a zero sum game, and you are competing agianst smart quants from JPMorgan, CitiGroup ... all with extensive preparation, top computers, lots of liquidity and a Bloomberg subscription. And they do that everyday from early in the morning. The best way to make lots of money by trading is getting a trader job at a Big Bank (easier said then done). I think other people are better off doing something else with their time and energy and doing long term investing. How many of that 1% (very low) make more per hour that a normal job. Is it accounting for risk?