Disliked@nubcake
Great job, you are critisizing the grammar of a non-native English-speaker, in an international Forum, well done!Ignored
QuoteDislikedPlease learn to read. I nowhere stated that the most of people win. It's just the 95% number that bothers me.
Imho if you take FX serious in all terms (MM,edge,psychology...) the failure rate is way below 95%.
whether or not the number is 95% is really beside the point. i'd be surprised, like hanover, if the number isn't higher. so, you have stated your position. you don't like the 95% number. ok. great. if you have some new revelatory pieces of data then we are all ears...
edit : even just give some examples of everyday situations where most people, and not a very small minority, actually succeed and are profitable in some avenue that has a low entry requirement.
how many people can play poker, or some sport, or an instrument? and how many of those can actually make a living from it. taking a few pots in poker does not make someone 'profitable'. winning one or two amateur golf games does not make someone 'profitable'. plenty of people can build a sand-castle, but how many of those can make a living building skyscrapers or being an architect?
it's one thing to look at people who have gone through kindergarten, primary school, secondary school, university, and have walked-away with a legitimately respectable degree and then take a sample of how many of these people are making money in their field. sure, you would expect the failure rate to be much much lower than 95%. but it's another thing to look at something that has such low entry requirements and then sample the people involved and expect anything other than finding most people to be losing, or merely pissing in the wind wasting their time, and then have a select few who become experts and actually can make something from it.
threads like this suggest to me that people are just desperately hoping for it to not be true.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!