/biz/ - Business & Finance

It's possible, just not likely.

>>676830

how come some people seem to be naturally good at it, and consistently make money?

>>676832
how come some people seem to be naturally good at sports, and consistently win?

>>676838

well Yeah I know, but my point is with sports you can kinda tell what skillsets people have that make them excell..

For example, tyrone is fast as fuck due to his black genetics, not to mention quite strong, thus he is pretty damn good at rugby.

What sort of skills/characteristics lie in these people that flourish in day-trading?

It's certainly possible to make a living out of it. But to make millions every year off day trading is maybe 1 in 10 million of traders.

>>676842
I dunno, perhaps they have to be good at guessing and being random.

That depends on your definition of good.

If you mean "make a living wage to support myself and have the potential to invest and grow money from it" then you sure can.

If you mean "strike it rich", then your chances are low unless you don't mind "bending the rules" here and there.

Of course, neither are gonna happen if you're a dumbass.

If you grab 100,000 people, flip a coin 1000 times, and have them guess heads or tails before each flip you will find that some are "naturally good at it."

>>676822
you can make shit loads of money by playing poker, it even has a better win ratio than day trading, why not try that?

>>676822
Yes, it is possible to make a decent living for yourself day-trading if you put in the time, effort, and studying hours. The reason some people are "naturally" good at it is because they put in a lot more time into learning it than others. You never see anyone say "I've been making 1k a day since I started trading." Every successful trader has a story about how they blew up, how they fucked up, how long it took them, how much they studied, etc. It's just like anything else, money doesn't come easy. Don't listen to the fuckin /biz/tards on here about MUHVALUE INVESTING BOGGLEEEH3DZ. They're fucking stupid and think that, just because they're incapable of putting the time and effort into something to learn, it's impossible for someone else too.

>>677264

This is why I think /biz/ is fucking retarded.

>>677451

good response. ty

Really really few good investors actually daytrade. (Im talking guys who outperform indexes on a consistent basis by great margins). Its just not feasible and depends mostly on luck since there are so many factors that you cant account for. In the end a REALLY really great and disciplined daytrader might win 56% of the time but a lot of that win is going to be eaten up by comissions. On top of that he will have spent a LOT of time on the trading.

Instead of daytrading you should look at actively managing your portfolio on maybe a weekly or a montly basis. Buying stocks up before their earnings reports could prove a really great strategy in a healthy economy since odds are in your favor.

>>677458
You're delusional.

>>677451
You're retarded.

You deserve each other.

>>677504
I think he's cute.

>>677504

Yeah prove to me that what I said is wrong and maybe I'll take you seriously. Until then, I'll interpret your elementary namecalling as shitposting.

>>677661
>prove to me that what I said is wrong and maybe I'll take you seriously
You're obviously incapable of making any intelligent decisions, so your opinion gets discarded. But for the benefit of any innocent anons browsing the thread ,,,,

There is no evidence that putting in "time, effort, and studying hours" results in any improvement in investment returns, let alone with day-trading. If effort, time, or research was a determinative factor in investment performance, then we would expect to find professional Wall Street trading firms regularly outperform index benchmarks. After all, these trading firms have top educated traders, massive research staff, and unlimited resources. Yet 90% of these firms can't even beat an index over time periods as short as 5 years.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/s-p-spiva-midyear-2014-active-versus-passive-scorecard-active-underperforms-again/

As for day-trading, the academic community dismissed that scam years ago. Study after study shows its a failed strategy.

http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/behfin/2004-04-10/barber-lee-liu-odean.pdf
http://www.investorhome.com/daytrade/profits.htm
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers/Day%20Traders/Day%20Trading%20Skill%20110523.pdf
http://www.iassa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/journals/075/iaj-75-no-3-ryu-final.pdf

The evidence is so one-sided that no respected market researcher or academic even seriously considers day-trading a viable investment approach.

Is it possible to make money daytrading? Sure. Just like its possible to make money at a casino or playing the lottery. Its pure chance, no skill involved, and very low probability of coming out ahead over any meaningful period of time.

Case closed.

>>677693
>There is no evidence that putting in "time, effort, and studying hours" results in any improvement in investment returns, let alone with day-trading.
Are you literally retarded?

>Hurr studying and practice don't improve anything
This is you. You're one of those morons who thinks the stock market is a casino.

>As for day-trading, the academic community dismissed that scam years ago.
>scam
Pic related

>Is it possible to make money daytrading? Sure. Just like its possible to make money at a casino or playing the lottery.
Wow. I literally wrote that casino bit before reading the rest of your post. Yep. You're retarded. Here's a clue, since you're obviously too poor to buy one: the stock market is not a casino. And you prove you don't know shit when you try to convince people it is.

>>677770
>You're one of those morons who thinks the stock market is a casino.
I know quite well that the stock market isn't a zero-sum game ... over a meaningful period of time. This is because the stock market is comprised of companies, the aggregate value of which can be increased over time through technology, efficiency, and growth in global GDP.

However, in the short term, the markets do function as a zero-sum game because short-term stock prices can't be reliably influenced by macro-economic factors. This is the primary reason why day-trading, swing-trading, and technical analysis are all failed strategies.

The two primary factors influencing investment performance are (1) time in market, and (2) fees. Day-trading is disadvantaged in BOTH these metrics, which explains why the success rate is so low.

I know its popular to think that effort, willpower, research, and skill positively affect everything in life. They don't. You simply cannot become better as guessing random outcomes.

Now you can get all mad about it, and kick and scream that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. But facts are facts, and the studies don't lie. You can't change reality no matter how much you whine. And the reality is that day trading is a losing strategy.

>since you're obviously too poor
kek

>>677638

thx

>>677770
You must be rich by now if you're so talented.

>>677798
it's pretty easy to make money day trading if you know what you're doing. it's not amazing money, but it's enough to live on.

why do people always have unrealistic expectations of what day trading is?

>>677800
>it's pretty easy to make money day trading if you know what you're doing. it's not amazing money, but it's enough to live on.
I see, so why not just take your winnings and start trading bigger lots in liquid products until you're rich?

http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20150222/1018609336.html

i wouldnt touch bitcoin, ever. it's doomed.

the system was always absurdly stupid. basically all coins that were easily mineable are mined. last coins will take 100 years.

>>677820

who said anythin bout bitcoin

>>677794
>I know its popular to think that effort, willpower, research, and skill positively affect everything in life. They don't. You simply cannot become better as guessing random outcomes.
But they're not random. You're just too stupid to see that. There's no such thing as random. Random is the filler word the ignorant use to explain cause and effect they don't understand. Causality is all-encompassing. Even casinos aren't truly random. You can always understand more about daytrading and the fluctuations you see. Christ, just go to youtube. There are people there all the time literally graphing for you what they've done and have given names to specific movements of equities during the day.

>Now you can get all mad about it
I'm not mad at all. I honestly don't care what you think. I'm just a bit annoyed that so many people on this board keep trying to equate daytrading to gambling, when it's really not. The premise of daytrading is to swing large amounts of cash/margin on small fluctuations in an equity. That is NOT fucking difficult to do. Just take stocks, since they're simple to understand. They fluctuate in price all day. As long as you're not in the middle of a catastrophe of some kind, such as a market downturn or bad news about a stock, the stock will go up and down for much of the day. Most stocks don't move by much though. Wal*Mart, for example will generally move less than 1% on any given day in either direction, which is why it's generally no good for daytrading.

>But facts are facts, and the studies don't lie.
And if this board is any indicator, the majority of daytraders are the kinds of idiots on this board who trade for like a month, blow up their accounts, then spew sour grapes about daytrading until the end of time. Daytrading is not for the timid or weak.

>>677800
Because they tried it once, traded with 100% margin, blew themselves completely out and now they believe it's impossible.

>>677848
Do you know how I know you're retarded?

>Christ, just go to youtube.

>>677693

>As for day-trading, the academic community dismissed that scam years ago. Study after study shows its a failed strategy.

Literally your first source contradicts you in the fucking abstract.

>http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/behfin/2004-04-10/barber-lee-liu-odean.pdf

>Despite these bleak findings, there is strong evidence of
persistent ability for a relatively small group of day traders. Traders with strong past
performance continue to earn strong returns. The stocks they buy outperform those they
sell by 62 basis points per day. This spread is sufficiently large to cover transaction
costs.

>>677794

>This is the primary reason why day-trading, swing-trading, and technical analysis are all failed strategies.

"day trading" isnt a strategy. its a time period you trade in.

>Now you can get all mad about it, and kick and scream that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. But facts are facts, and the studies don't lie. You can't change reality no matter how much you whine. And the reality is that day trading is a losing strategy.

Nope. See:>>677857

>>677855
That was precisely my point. EVEN youtube has evidence of successful daytraders. And I don't mean people who don't know a thing about what they're saying either. But if you want to keep believing nobody can make money daytrading, be my guest. It doesn't affect me either way.

>>677862
So you're a successful day trader then?

>>677871

>Billionaires don't exist because I'm not a billionaire

>>677878
This.

>>677878
Thanks for confirming that you're arrogance and confidence comes from watching youtube videos, not actually trading. Best of luck.

>>677887

> you're arrogance and confidence

Nice projection son

>>677857
Statistically speaking, we would expect to see 10% of day traders with performance above the benchmark. That the the study found a small group of successful day traders is perfectly in line with this prediction. You're grasping at straws.

>>677848
>just go to youtube
kek
>Daytrading is not for the timid or weak
double kek

>>677878
>>677882
No one said successful day traders don't exist. They are a statistical inevitability, just as they are a statistical rarity. Please stop making specious arguments. The adults here are going to make you look foolish.

The question is whether day trading is a viable strategy, compared to other alternatives such a long-term low-cost index investing. And what we know is that day trading underperforms 90% of the time, and that even in the 10% of cases the gain is margin. Simple math makes that a patently sub-optimal choice.

Can't argue with math.
>But I bet you guys will try.

>>677887
>you're

I refuse to take advice or criticism of any kind from somebody who can't even distinguish between you're and your

>>676822

Yes. You can extract about 0.5% of your invested capital from the market everyday with good timing provided your commodities of choice are volatile enough.

>>677896
And then as always, there is this faggot.

>>676822

I work at a day-trading firm and there are definitely people making good money doing it. Out of about 20 guys, probably 4 or 5 are making a million or more a year. The average is like low-mid six figures.

But it takes a lot of patience to get to that level. Most of the junior guys (like myself) barely make anything the first year. One guy who made $100k+ last month didn't make a dime his first two years and lost $40k of the firm's capital before breaking out.

For that reason, I wouldn't recommend trying to daytrade your own account. You really need to trade a lot and lose a lot before you get confident enough to make money. The vast majority of the guys there are former pro poker players with no economics background whatsoever. The qualities of these kinds of people are really what make or break a daytrader. You have to be emotionless, a fast decision maker, and know when to press your advantage. It's easy to find and enter a good looking trade, but once you're in it most people either turn into a scared little girl or greedy shit. Poker types have the discipline to remain objective when the P&L swings wildly in either direction.

>>677896

>Statistically speaking, we would expect to see 10% of day traders with performance above the benchmark.

"Statistically speaking," uh no.

>Simple math makes that a patently sub-optimal choice

Not if you have the skills to be a successful day trader. Statistically speaking any business you found will fail, you won't become president, or even elected to congress. Why try? Statistically speaking you shouldn't even be alive as we haven't found life anywhere else in the universe.

Everyone knows it is incredibly unlikely to succeed at day trading. I never argued against that. I argue against the notion that successful day traders don't exist.

>>677693
So what you're trying to say is that places like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley hire day and swing traders so they can intentionally underperform the index? Lol, how adorable. I guess that proves the notion that investment banks are greedy in any capacity demonstrably false because they, according to you, hire people on and pay them 6-figures a year just to underperform the index.

would it be wise to invest in oil? since the stocks are so low atm?

>>677908
>Why try?
Given the success rate of 10%, day trading would still be a smart strategy IF the marginal gains were 90% or more than other alternatives.

People take correctly a short against long odds when the potential gains are huge. Or, when they have no other choice.

Neither applies in the case of day-trading. The potential gains are proven to be marginal, at best, and alternatives are readily available to all investors with an investment horizon longer than 12 months (which should be everyone not suffering from terminal cancer).

So what's your excuse? Cancer?

>>677930

>The potential gains are proven to be marginal

See:>>677907

>>677933
No, I won't. I'm not going to accept the unsubstantiated, anecdotal report of an anonymous newbie day-trader to dismiss the results of multiple peer-reviewed academic studies.

Anyone who would should take a long look in the mirror.

>>677918

pls someone answer

>>677918

buy low, sell high, yeah
hold on to it for a few years until the price gets up again before selling

idk, can you?

>>677937
why do you care so much about what other people do with their money?

>>677937

Your precious studies literally say the same thing.

"Despite these bleak findings, there is strong evidence of
persistent ability for a relatively small group of day traders. Traders with strong past
performance continue to earn strong returns. The stocks they buy outperform those they
sell by 62 basis points per day. This spread is sufficiently large to cover transaction
costs."

Pic related is marginal returns according to iHaz.

>>677940

snort blow, get high?

>>677942
I don't care what anyone does or doesn't do with their money. Doesn't change the fact that there's good advice and there's bad advice.

If the intelligent browsers of /biz/ can drive off the day-traders like we're doing with the crypto freaks, then the board quality will rise.

Its a struggle, I admit, but it can be satisfying at times. Take this thread for example: there hasn't been a singe cogent argument made for day-trading. This shows the good guys are winning.

>>677907
How do you even get your foot in the door at a place like this. Especially if you are trading with firm capital, how do they establish you as someone worth their time?

>>677950
you think that's /biz/'s problem? Daytrading threads are rather uncommon. You'd have to exterminate the >I have x and want to make x and >How do I make mad dosh kinds of thread before /biz/ gets any better

Won't happen probably though, as I guess the average age of /biz/ posters is around 17-21 years

>>677950
I knew I smelled a retard. Then I saw your trip and everything made sense.

>>677945


it's fucking oil, prices gonna go up eventually

>>677939

Oil is only a wise investment over the long term (at least 3 plus years). Inventories continue to stack up and there is no reason to suspect a "V" shaped bounce. Oil could absolutely go lower, and the recovery time frame could easily be many years from now.

The simple fact that common investors think oil is this can't miss play, is enough to scare me off from any long position.

this is a pretty stupid question but. Lets say something was a really good day-trader, and consistently made profits..

What if I just literally copied his every move? And gave him half the profits I make? He loses nothing and gains money. Do people do this?

>>677950

>Its a struggle, I admit, but it can be satisfying at times. Take this thread for example: there hasn't been a singe cogent argument made for day-trading. This shows the good guys are winning.

You're so full of yourself.

>>677937

Anonymous newbie daytrader here. I absolutely intended my post to be a cautionary tale for anyone looking to daytrade. If you use your own account, you have the potential to lose a shit ton of money, get burnt out and give up. However, if you work for a firm that provides you starting capital then there is really no risk to at least give it a shot and at some point or another someone is going to tell you whether you're cut out for the gig or not.

Poker playing really isn't a viable option in terms of risk/reward but you can't look at everything in life under that lens. Nobody with an awesome job played the safe odds to get there. You think there wasn't a naysayer for every actor, rockstar, athlete, etc.? We're young, we got plenty of time to bounce back, ain't no reason not to take the long shots now

>>677953
Naw. We should start with the tripfags.

>>677896
>Statistically speaking, we would expect to see 10% of day traders with performance above the benchmark.
AND?? Now let's give you something to think about that you haven't yet. Those minority of successful daytraders STOMP THE EVERLIVING SHIT out of buy and hold bogleheads. And they ALL had to start somewhere. The percentage of daytraders who are successful would be ZERO if they acted like you. Just shut the fuck up. If you don't want to daytrade, then don't.

>just go to youtube
>kek
Already explained this.

>Daytrading is not for the timid or weak
>double kek
It isn't. It's high risk/high reward. If you can't handle it, then don't. But don't be so fucking buttflustered about it. Christ, you even felt the need to trip about this, which is the ultimate sign of assrage.

>No one said successful day traders don't exist. They are a statistical inevitability, just as they are a statistical rarity.
Here's the problem with your argument. It's fucking stupid. Those "statistical inevitablities" are people. And if you honestly think that they are only successful because they're just lucky and good at gambling then YOU ARE A FUCKING RETARD. Period.

>Simple math makes that a patently sub-optimal choice.
Except that simple math also shows that successful daytraders BLOW THE FUCK out of the miniscule returns of buy and hold fucks. It's a simple matter of lower quantity, higher quality. This isn't difficult to understand. I guarantee you that no successful daytrader ever got where they were without taking large losses every so often and just giving up when they did. And they certainly didn't just decide to go buy and hold, because they couldn't make it. If that's your experience, have fun. But you are the literal definition of fucking sour grapes in action.

>>677907
>The qualities of these kinds of people are really what make or break a daytrader. You have to be emotionless, a fast decision maker, and know when to press your advantage.
This 100%

>>677960
>You're so full of yourself.
What's funny is that throughout this entire thread I haven't made a single argument based on my intelligence, my wealth, or my experience. Everything I've said -- every point I've argued -- comes from peer-reviewed academic studies.

And all you people can do in response is hurl ad hominem attacks.
>And that's how I know I've won this debate.

>>677965

Just stop arguing with him. He doesn't red your points, doesn't care and will never change his mind about anything. He caught a bull market and made some money so he's right about everything ever about investments.

This is what you're dealing with.

>>677971
>He caught a bull market and made some money so he's right about everything ever about investments.
I've been investing since 1994, which includes two major crashes. Where is your God now?

>>677930

>>677908
>Statistically speaking any business you found will fail, you won't become president, or even elected to congress. Why try? Statistically speaking you shouldn't even be alive as we haven't found life anywhere else in the universe.
This. You're just using statistics to salve your butthurt. By your own logic, nobody should ever be a successful senator or CEO because so very small of a percent of the population occupies that position. Guess nobody should ever try and CEO isn't a viable position. Idiot.

>>677930
>The potential gains are proven to be marginal
Are you out of your mind or just that bad at math? The returns of buy and holders per year are GOOD if they're 10%. You can make that IN ONE FUCKING DAY daytrading. You can also lose that, but that isn't the point. The point is, it's not even difficult to outpace index funds. Literally all you have to do is make ONE good trade and then not trade again all fucking year, and you've already broken even with snail investors. What you keep discounting is that the potential for phenomenal gains is there for a daytrader, but it's really NOT for a long-term investor. They have a habit of calling shit like 5% swings up and down "noise". To a daytrader that shit wouldn't be noise, it would be PROFIT because they would lock in their gains. A successful daytrader will blow an investor out of the water every time, people like Buffett notwithstanding, since he's an extremely unique case.

>>677937
>anecdotal
Smith and Wesson moved something like 11% a few days ago. That is the SECOND time I've seen it do that in the past TWO MONTHS. JDST moved almost 20% during the last session. So did DUST. I nearly bought SWHC, but I was overly cautious and didn't. I could kick myself in the ass for that, since I had a strong feeling it was coming and I actually DID buy JDST in my virtual account, but not in real life. Again, being overly cautious. Again, could kick myself in the ass.

>>677974

>I've been investing since 1994, which includes two major crashes. Where is your God now?

So you've had 2 opportunities in invest at attractive valuations?

>>677951

Besides the poker players, everyone there has a different background. If you studied something difficult and got a good GPA, it's probably enough to get you an interview. I actually knew the head trader, who invested in a startup I worked for as a programmer, so getting the interview was the easy part after the startup failed.

As long as they already know you're a smart guy, the biggest thing is just to appear confident and competitive in the interview. They really grill you in the interview to see how you handle the stress and to make sure your life story checks out. I think more people make it through than you would think though...I can tell the head trader likes to give young ambitious dudes a chance even if he's not sure exactly how they'll perform. The capital he'll lose on one year with a new trader is like what the company makes in a day.

I make at least $200 every trade, every other day. It's very easy.

>>677961
>We're young, we got plenty of time to bounce back, ain't no reason not to take the long shots now
Actually there's a very good reason not to take long shots now. All wealth is relative. If you gamble away the wealth you make in your 20's, you're going to be ten years behind your peers who followed a sound investment strategy. You'll literally never catch up with them. And thanks to compounding, that gap grows over time. So now you're stuck in a lower wealth tier, with a poorer quality of life. Statistically, this means more health problems, more stress, more work, and shorter lifespan.

Doesn't sound like a great strategy to me.

>>677986

What you just said is a reason NEVER to take long shots. Great advice.

>>677986
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Otla5157c

>>677950
But your advice is terrible advice. Your advice is literally "Anything that has a small percent chance of happening is not worth doing.", which even you have to know is complete bullshit.

>If the intelligent browsers of /biz/
But you're not intelligent. You're the very definition of mediocre.

>>677953
Actually, /biz/ has dramatically improved since it started. It used to be you literally couldn't ask ANYTHING without the answers being:

>HURR GET A JOB
>PLEB!
>WHY U NOT A BILLIONAIRE LIKE ME!?

That shit has settled down quite a bit and you can actually discuss business and finance now. You still have a SHITTON of naysayers who keep saying nothing is possible but long-term investing, which even they know is complete bullshit. They're probably all just butthurt 20-somethings who blew their accounts up daytrading stupidly. It's actually pretty difficult to destroy your entire account daytrading without doing some insanely stupid shit. Even if you aren't wildly successful or even if all you do is lose money. It still takes a lot to blow your account up totally.

>>677958
This. Right now, oil is too volatile. Nobody expected it to plummet like it did and it caused pure madness in the markets. It really shouldn't be as low as it is. I wouldn't touch oil right now unless you're planning on holding it for at least about six months.

>>677969
>Everything I've said -- every point I've argued -- comes from peer-reviewed academic studies.
The problem is you've confused statistics with strategy.

>And all you people can do in response is hurl ad hominem attacks.
You haven't won shit, except in your own mind. You've been countered with more than ad homs. You've just gotten pelted with them, because you're retarded.

>>677974
So you lost money in 2008-2009? Great job.

>>677984
As long as you have a lot of money to swing with. The problem with daytrading is it's difficult to do with less cash. You have to worry about the Pattern Day Trader rule, and making commission.

>>677979

Give it up bro. Remember he already declared himself the winner of your argument. That no point you made was valid. And that most importantly he is right.

>>677997

is 25k enough starting money to make 200 every second day?

>>677997

i would be planning on holding the oil for 6 months.. didn't warren buffet say be greedy when others are fearful? Isn't this a perfect opportunity?

>>677989
I already said above that taking a long shot makes sense when (a) the potential gains outweigh the likelihood of failure, and (b) there are no superior alternatives.

>I know its a long thread, but try to keep up.

Day-trading doesn't pass this test both because the gains are statistically unlikely to outweigh the risk of failure (according to the studies) and because proven alternative investment strategies exist that provide a superior risk-adjusted return.

There is literally no reason to day trade, except for the entertainment value.

>>677907

as a professional live player, i concur with your sentiment about poker types having the discipline

>>678000
Absolutely. Hell, you could do that with much less really. But with $25k you actually qualify as a day trader and you have unlimited day trades. If you have an account with less than $25k you can only daytrade 3 times in a 5 day period (that only includes trading/business days, not weekends), so you're very limited if you're below that. But being successful isn't just about making money - it's also about controlling losses. You could make $200 dollars every other day, then lose $1,000 if you're not careful. Just don't trade with 100% of your margin. EVER.

>>678008

ya reason why I said 25k is I thought you need 25k minimum

>>678008

but ty for clearing that up

>>678005

A statistical failure != failure in every outcome, hence the need for the adjective "statistical."

>>677983
Do they force you to trade their system? What sort of limitations do they put on you?

I know I wouldn't get a shot because I dropped out of college, but it still intrigues me how a business like that even works.

>>677693

>Linking taiwanese studies

welcome back, iHaz

>>678016
I've already said (many times, in fact) that successful day traders do exist. Successful lottery winners exist too. There are successful roulette players too.

You seem to think this somehow validates your world view, when in fact it does the opposite.

If your only choice in life were to day trade or burn your money in fire, then you should choose day trading 100% of the time.

Fortunately, other alternatives do exist.

>>678022
>implying that people in Taiwan day trade any differently than anywhere else in the world

>>678022

>Linking taiwanese studies

And? Kospi index options(Korea) are the most actively traded options in the world. But that doesn't matter because it doesn't happen in the US?

>>678023

>You seem to think this somehow validates your world view, when in fact it does the opposite.

My world view IS that successful day traders exist. That's all it is. I said that here:>>677908

>>678004
Well yeah, if you're willing to hold it long term. Personally, I hate having my money tied up that long.

>>678012
You don't NEED $25k to daytrade. People misunderstand the Pattern Daytrader Rule pretty frequently. You can daytrade with fifty bucks assuming your brokerage allows that low of a balance. You'll probably lose all your gains in fees, but it is allowed.

>>678023
>I've already said (many times, in fact) that successful day traders do exist. Successful lottery winners exist too. There are successful roulette players too.
If you think these things are comparable, then you simply don't know what you're talking about.

>Fortunately, other alternatives do exist.
Except what you keep failing to comprehend is that there really AREN'T any alternatives to making as much as you CAN make daytrading, other than owning a very large business or a fuckton of real estate. The great thing about daytrading is you can start with a relatively small amount of capital and it can explode. There are very few methods by which this is possible than short-term trading. Is everyone going to have that happen? No. Does that mean it's not worth it for someone who understands the principles and wants to try? Nope. The fact is you can't be a successful daytrader if you don't daytrade. And there ARE successful daytraders, as you yourself admit. Ergo, at least for SOME people, daytrading is viable.

You keep comparing apples to oranges and then saying apples are just an inferior type of orange. Apples aren't oranges.

>>676822
Hi OP
To answer your question, yes, it is possible to make good money day-trading.
But to get at a level where you can comfortably day-trade can take a long time and a lot of mistakes to build up to.
For example, in February I traded pretty much every day in multiple stocks, whatever I saw an obvious opportunity in, and made 8%. When it comes to short-term strategies, I don't really have emotion anymore.

That being said, in order to get to that level, I went through a whole hell of a lot to even consider day-trading. My other portfolio (that has more value) is down about 40% from oil-related investments made at the top without a proper strategy.

Someone else mentioned it before, but a lot of people go through a few big mistakes before they begin to day-trade successfully. Unless you've been actively vested in the market for over a year I wouldn't even recommend a person trying it.

>>678023
>>678025

Not once did I imply that they didn't matter, it's just he regurgitates those same 5 studies everytime he enters a thread and shitposts before tripfagging. Didn't finish catching up on the thread, just my way of identifying him.

>>678018

Pretty much there are no limitations. Junior guys have to stick to equities, but once they trust you, you can do options, forex, fixed income, whatever.

We have a really powerful filter system for finding good technical setups, but even that you can customize. Most of the junior guys stick to playing the filters because you find out very quickly that all the great trade ideas you had before you entered this profession are actually not even close to resembling a good idea. They teach you a lot though, which is really cool, and eventually you realize there's like a "next level" of trades, if that makes any sense...things you would never even consider if you were just working with a layman's knowledge of the market.

>>678049

Well don't be shy, what are these superior technical setups?

Surely you aren't just a monkey hitting the buy/sell button when the system tells you to. I mean, you must have a working knowledge of what the system is showing you, and why it works on a fundamental level.

So what is an example of a "good technical setup".

Is it volume spread analysis, market profile?

Here's a study regarding profitable day traders:

http://finance.martinsewell.com/day-trading/HarrisSchultz1998.pdf

>>677451
99% of the time you are going to lose money or make very little day trading. If you want to be patient and make money in the long term value investing is the way to go. The get rich quick mentality is for retards who lack patience.

>>677770
No one can reliably predict markets. You are the retarded one.

Day trading is a fool’s errand. If you were ever tempted to enter the fray, recognize once and for all that those banks of computers chugging away at their algorithms have you hopelessly outclassed. There’s simply no way an individual human being can compete against a fleet of CPUs that rivals NASA’s. Do not, I repeat, do not try it. You will lose.

>>678054

There's nothing magic about the filter system, it just tells you which names are in what kind of pattern like a breakout from a consolidation, a new high/low etc. The filters give you hundreds of different stocks a day. Ultimately you still have to make your own call based on the volume, the daily chart, the sector, the moving averages, etc. This is the part where you have to lose a bunch of money. Until you just have a "feel" for the perfect setup, you're not gonna pick enough of the right names out of the filter.

>>677918
I'm gonna cash in my US savings bond worth about 1500 and put it in exxon and chevron. They are trading insanely low and will rebound. Good dividends also.

>>678074

why exxon? exxon isn't low right now

>>678074
MLPs

>>678073
What exactly is "next level" about any of that though?

Breakouts are some of the most obvious and over traded "patterns" out there. I mean, if your filter is only showing you basic technical analysis patterns, then I can scan for those myself with some simple stockfetcher code.

Do you like to trade divergences, trend reversals, or what?

>>678036
>If you think these things are comparable
They're not comparable. You get free drinks when you play roulette.

>there really AREN'T any alternatives to making as much as you CAN make daytrading
Citation fucking missing. Because the studies say the profits of successful day traders are only marginally above index benchmarks.

>>678061
>Here's a study regarding profitable day traders:
"Of the 69 bandits with one or more round trips, 52 were profitable before and 35 were profitable after commissions of $25 per trade"
Only 35/69 profitable after commissions.

This is without making any risk-adjusted comparison to other strategies, which the study doesn't even attempt.

>>678041
>just my way of identifying him
Congrats Sherlock. I didn't trip earlier in the thread because my identity isn't relevant to my arguments.

I only put on the trip when someone argued that my argument was suspect because I am poor. As a point in fact, I am not poor, as you know.

>>678105
In other words, most were profitable before the unusually high commission by todays standards and half were still profitable after the high commission.

Also, the study isn't intended to compare strategies.

>>678105

>as a point in fact, I am not poor, as you know.
>because nobody would lie on the internet!
You are really insecure.

>>678089

By next level I meant some of the stuff I've learned while being there like trading closing imbalances, preferred stock, closed-end funds, how to get the most out of trailing stop orders, and how to better incorporate the structure of the order book and time&sales into my trades.

I mostly just like to trade mean reversion because you have a pretty good idea where to place your stop loss and where to take profit so I think it's a better defined trade, but it's also been a lot harder the past two months because everything pretty much just goes up all day.

I don't pretend to be an expert or anything, I've only been there for 4 months. I'm sure there are people here who know as much or more as I do, so I don't really have a "secret sauce" for you guys -- just some insight into what the job is like and what you can expect to learn when you start

>>678118
>In other words, most were profitable before the unusually high commission by todays standards and half were still profitable after the high commission.
Taking fees out of the equation is completely inappropriate and unrealistic. Lots of high frequency strategies look good in a white paper, but fail because their uneconomical in the real world.

If the strategy described in that study is still viable, and if the applicable commissions are indeed now lower, let's see the proof. I can only offer critiques on a study that exists, not one in your head.

>Also, the study isn't intended to compare strategies
Then what's the point? Aren't we all trying to determine the optimal approaches to growing our wealth?

Saying that "X works" without doing a risk-adjusted analysis and without comparing it to available alternatives doesn't really advance the discussion.

>>678120
>because nobody would lie on the internet!
https://archive.moe/biz/thread/301031
Hello and welcome to /biz/.

>>678123
Cool man. Good luck, I hope you make it. If you are interested in mean reversion look into Auction Market Theory, you might gain some insight into what the market is actually doing to cause the reversions.

>>678136

>https://archive.moe/biz/thread/301031
>Implying that I havent been here for more than a year and dont remember that thread
You still are the insecure little faggot now that you were then. And you're still full of shit.

>>678144
Thanks for all your contributions to the thread! You've provided so much helpful information and advice. Your incredible words of wisdom will surely change someone's life.

>>678155
You're welcome. Anytime I can help.

>>678136
That's great. Commission today is less than half of the $25 they were paying in the study making the strategy even more viable. One could also consider the results if the traders in the study decided to switch to a lower commission broker. Even so, half were still profitable.

>Then what's the point?
Had you bothered to read it, the study was designed to determine the viability of day trading. Not compare day trading to indexing or anything else. You're criticizing it for something it was never intended to do.

>>678160
>half were still profitable
You can't assume the lower commissions exist in one market just because they've changed in another market. Not all trades have the same execution structure or cost.

Furthermore, even disregarding commissions (which you can't do), a 50% profitability result is hardly worth writing home about. Its literally a coin flip, at best. It should be obvious, but betting on a coin-flip odds is not a viability investment strategy.

>the study was designed to determine the viability of day trading
How can you decide the viability of an investment strategy without comparing it other strategies, on either an absolute or risk-adjusted basis? Wealth is relative. If I'm making pennies while others are making dollars, I'm getting poorer. That's not a viable strategy, even though I have more pennies than before.

That the author's failed to include this analysis in their study is therefore a relevant and valid critique.

>>678168

>How can you decide the viability of an investment strategy without comparing it other strategies, on either an absolute or risk-adjusted basis? Wealth is relative. If I'm making pennies while others are making dollars, I'm getting poorer. That's not a viable strategy, even though I have more pennies than before.

>>677261
This

>>678168
>You can't assume the lower commissions exist in one market just because they've changed in another market
I never said anything about changing markets. I said changing brokers. You see, I can trade with TDAmeritrade and pay $10/trade, or I can go with Scottrade and pay $7/trade, or I can go with Interactive Brokers and pay $0.005/share. Depending on which broker I chose, even when trading the same securities, it will change my cost basis and in the context of the study, if the traders switched to a broker with lower commissions, it would produce a higher after-commission success rate. The commission is not universally fixed at a certain rate making it a variable expense.

>Furthermore, even disregarding commissions (which you can't do), a 50% profitability result is hardly worth writing home about
You have that completely backwards. Excluding commission, 75% were able to trade profitably and 50% were able to trade profitably after commission.

>How can you decide the viability of an investment strategy without comparing it other strategies
By determining whether it can be done profitably or not. Which, again, is the point of the study.

When solar energy was in its infancy, people ran studies to determine whether solar energy would be able to produce enough electricity to power anything of note and whether it would do it in a reliable capacity. They did not, however, immediately compare it to pre-existing power sources. According to you, determining whether solar energy was able to power, say, a home is not a valid study simply because they didn't compare it to coal even though the point was just to determine it's capabilities.

>>678200
>I never said anything about changing markets
Did you even read the study? These were traders front-running executions in a highly-specialized, limited access market. According to the study, they had real-time direct access (as in actual voice communication) with on-floor traders. That's not something that retail brokers, including IB, offer.

I'm not sure that you're a credible advocate for your position when you can't even be bothered to read the evidence you cite for your case.

Thanks for your posts though. The study was an interesting read, even though it was completely inapplicable to our current discussion.

>>678105

Yeah, we know you're not poor. You just made most of your money being a 50 year old lawyer and getting an inheritance.

>>677794
I agree, day trading and forex in the end is just guessing... you would be better playing poker which actually involves some skill

>>678967
>forex is just guessing
>poker involves skill