Are 48% of oandas accounts profitable? | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Profitable strategies in range trading conditions 22 replies

How long the learning time to breakeven/be profitable? 8 replies

Profitable Live Accounts Only 24 replies

Major Chink In Oandas Armor 40 replies

PivotMagic v4 EA: Something new, could prove profitable! 0 replies

Attachments: Are 48% of oandas accounts profitable?
Exit Attachments

Are 48% of oandas accounts profitable?

  • #1
  • First Post: Nov 21, 2010 8:08am Nov 21, 2010 8:08am
hey guys,

saw the statement on oandas site that 48% of there customers are profitable, could not find any discussion about it on forums so thought would put it out there to see what everyone has to say.......... see the link below

http://fxtrade.oanda.com/why/policie...rccont=graphic
  • #2
  • Nov 21, 2010 8:29am Nov 21, 2010 8:29am
It was discussed already on this forum.
  • #3
  • Nov 21, 2010 8:30am Nov 21, 2010 8:30am
http://forexmagnates.com/us-forex-br...ty-comparison/ [EURUSD thread]
  • #4
  • Nov 21, 2010 9:48am Nov 21, 2010 9:48am
Quoting dworld
hey guys,

saw the statement on oandas site that 48% of there customers are profitable, could not find any discussion about it on forums so thought would put it out there to see what everyone has to say.......... see the link below

http://fxtrade.oanda.com/why/policie...rccont=graphic
I am not surprised.. first of all you should be aware as a trader that it is a zero sum market.. 50% people make money.. and 50% lose..

there is no way for everyone in the market to make money.. someone has to lose..

so 48% were profitable.. well its only oanda so don't forget other brokers users could take profit from those 52% of losing oanda accounts..

it may be a trillion dollar market but the main winners are brokers.. banks.. and the U.S. government (for taxing the US forex traders who profit) they are the real winners.. like the house at a casino..

so yeah zero sum market / economics 101 stuff

does it mean you have a 50% chance of making money? no... with the right strategy you can have a 80-90% chance of making money.. but everytime you make money you can think to yourself (yes I just made 50 bucks.. so I took 50 bucks from someone

and when you lose 50 bucks (damn someone somewhere is smiling because they took my 50 bucks...

it could be the bank or another trader sitting in there bedroom like you are.(or maybe me, or maybe another trader from forex factory!)

so build a good system with decent edge for winning.. 51-60% chance of winning and couple it with good risk management 1-2 (so every time you lose 1 dollar everytime your win 2 dollars with 60% chance of winning) now your in the winning 50% of people..

Best wishes!
  • #5
  • Nov 21, 2010 10:26am Nov 21, 2010 10:26am
Thank you newyear498. That is what I tried to explain in another thread.

I find it really weird that people don't see that these stats are perfectly normal. They actually conclude that this disproves the 5% percentage of consistent winners.

This is a numbers' game. Sucking at basic math doesn't help.
  • #6
  • Nov 21, 2010 10:29am Nov 21, 2010 10:29am
This is a new article that just appeared Nov. 19th.

Oanda's high profitability numbers explained - include interest
http://www.forexfactory.com/news.php?do=news&id=266514

"OANDA is the only broker, that I know of, that pays interest on accounts. OANDA’s numbers therefore reflect profitable accounts even if those accounts were with slight loss or dormant, the paid interest may have made them profitable."

Though my personal belief (I use Oanda),
low spreads, instant execution, historically 50:1 margin, and
the absence of Metatrader also help.
  • #7
  • Nov 21, 2010 10:30am Nov 21, 2010 10:30am
Quoting Intu
This is a new article that just appeared Nov. 19th.

Oanda's high profitability numbers explained - include interest
http://www.forexfactory.com/news.php?do=news&id=266514

"OANDA is the only broker, that I know of, that pays interest on accounts. OANDA’s numbers therefore reflect profitable accounts even if those accounts were with slight loss or dormant, the paid interest may have made them profitable."

Though my personal belief (I use Oanda),
low spreads, instant execution, historically 50:1 margin, and
the absence of Metatrader...
GFT who is also second on that list dont use metatrader either
Time hides Nothing
  • #8
  • Nov 21, 2010 10:32am Nov 21, 2010 10:32am
Btw, I did notice that Oanda has been trying to take advantage of these stats in their current advertising campaign, for the very reason that most traders will stupidly conclude that the stat reflects their chances of winning consistently.

So much for "transparency". lol

They're a good broker for sure, but don't be fooled into thinking they won't use such tactics to try to lure you into signing up and depositing money.
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: ad_screenshot.PNG Size: 16 KB
  • #9
  • Nov 21, 2010 6:26pm Nov 21, 2010 6:26pm
Quoting Marv
Btw, I did notice that Oanda has been trying to take advantage of these stats in their current advertising campaign, for the very reason that most traders will stupidly conclude that the stat reflects their chances of winning consistently.

So much for "transparency". lol

They're a good broker for sure, but don't be fooled into thinking they won't use such tactics to try to lure you into signing up and depositing money.
ha, watch as they atract all the losing traders now and there stats drop instantly the next year due to such advertising!

  • #10
  • Nov 21, 2010 6:27pm Nov 21, 2010 6:27pm
Quoting newyear498
ha, watch as they atract all the losing traders now and there stats drop instantly the next year due to such advertising!

well you can technically say 99% of all accounts are profitable, counting the fact that at some point in time, it was profitable, rather it be a second or continuous.
  • #11
  • Nov 21, 2010 7:23pm Nov 21, 2010 7:23pm
Quoting mikej2010
well you can technically say 99% of all accounts are profitable, counting the fact that at some point in time, it was profitable, rather it be a second or continuous.
True.

This thread's title, along with Oanda's ad, is missing the key phrase "...within a relatively short period of time".

I wonder why they aren't providing any stats for accounts that have been consistently profitable for at least a couple of years. Let's see a 48% there.
  • #12
  • Nov 21, 2010 7:54pm Nov 21, 2010 7:54pm
Quoting Intu
This is a new article that just appeared Nov. 19th.

Oanda's high profitability numbers explained - include interest
http://www.forexfactory.com/news.php?do=news&id=266514

"OANDA is the only broker, that I know of, that pays interest on accounts. OANDA’s numbers therefore reflect profitable accounts even if those accounts were with slight loss or dormant, the paid interest may have made them profitable."

Though my personal belief (I use Oanda),
low spreads, instant execution, historically 50:1 margin, and
the [b]absence...

hi intu

what is this interest that they pay ? how is it worked out ? can you explain ?
  • #13
  • Nov 21, 2010 8:22pm Nov 21, 2010 8:22pm
http://fxtrade.oanda.com/account/interest-calculator
  • #14
  • Nov 21, 2010 10:31pm Nov 21, 2010 10:31pm
Quoting newyear498
I am not surprised.. first of all you should be aware as a trader that it is a zero sum market.. 50% people make money.. and 50% lose..

there is no way for everyone in the market to make money.. someone has to lose..

so 48% were profitable.. well its only oanda so don't forget other brokers users could take profit from those 52% of losing oanda accounts..

it may be a trillion dollar market but the main winners are brokers.. banks.. and the U.S. government (for taxing the US forex traders who profit) they are the real winners.. like the...
Sorry but you are 100% wrong. 50% of Oanda individual retail traders are profitable has nothing to do with the other 50% not being profitable. This statistic has no correlation whatsoever with the overall forex market. It does not take into account the people who actually effect the market (which are NOT..NOT...not indvidual retail traders). Those 50% of Oanda traders plus all other individual retail traders all over the world with all the other brokers are nothing but a few mosquitos on a elephants butt!

SO, to summarize...your observation is dead wrong. Full stop!
  • #15
  • Nov 21, 2010 10:37pm Nov 21, 2010 10:37pm
Quoting Intu
This is a new article that just appeared Nov. 19th.

Oanda's high profitability numbers explained - include interest
http://www.forexfactory.com/news.php?do=news&id=266514

"OANDA is the only broker, that I know of, that pays interest on accounts. OANDA’s numbers therefore reflect profitable accounts even if those accounts were with slight loss or dormant, the paid interest may have made them profitable."

Though my personal belief (I use Oanda),
low spreads, instant execution, historically 50:1 margin, and
the absence of Metatrader...
I have heard just about every argument anyone could possibly pull out of thin air trying to explain Oanda's stastics as anything but normal.

The latest myth seems to be this whole "it's the interest" thing. If you took the time to look into it you would find that they did NOT...not....not include dormant accounts.........mmmmmok.
  • #16
  • Nov 21, 2010 11:12pm Nov 21, 2010 11:12pm
Quoting hubbahubba
I have heard just about every argument anyone could possibly pull out of thin air trying to explain Oanda's stastics as anything but normal.

The latest myth seems to be this whole "it's the interest" thing. If you took the time to look into it you would find that they did NOT...not....not include dormant accounts.........mmmmmok.
*citation needed

I'm not saying it isn't legitimate, but outliers tend to have an alternative explanation that, upon further investigation, brings them back within the curve.
  • #17
  • Nov 21, 2010 11:13pm Nov 21, 2010 11:13pm
Quoting hubbahubba
Sorry but you are 100% wrong....
Actually.. your right.. I was raised as stock market being a zero sum market but I just saw this... http://www.investopedia.com/terms/z/zero-sumgame.asp

but I was never foolish enough to say 50% of oanda would win and 50% would lose.. I did mention other players in market.. but anyways investopedia says its not a zero sum so I take back what I was taught earlier..

anyways its still a disadvantage market.. big players win overall .. but all that money has to trickle from somewhere.. if I make money someone is losing money.. its just not zero sum and in equal proportions.. 20% could take the money from 80% of the people (aka recent US ressesion with a few key players screwing the little guys over (selling loans they know cant be paid off) )


anyways I do belive oanda has best percentage of winners due to low speads so more advantage over guys with 2.5 speads and also oanda is very fair IMHO


(im 100% wrong.. no.. maybe about zero sum terminology in first post.. but i'm pretty on target I like to belive
  • #18
  • Nov 21, 2010 11:15pm Nov 21, 2010 11:15pm
Quoting Marv
Thank you newyear498. That is what I tried to explain in another thread.

I find it really weird that people don't see that these stats are perfectly normal. They actually conclude that this disproves the 5% percentage of consistent winners.

This is a numbers' game. Sucking at basic math doesn't help.
mary.. just found out its not zero sum according to investopedia.. oh well most of what I said about banks, brokers. and government having upper hand is still true tho!
  • #19
  • Nov 21, 2010 11:25pm Nov 21, 2010 11:25pm
Quoting asymmetric
*citation needed

I'm not saying it isn't legitimate, but outliers tend to have an alternative explanation that, upon further investigation, brings them back within the curve.
www.oanda.com......

It's all there....but only if you WANT to find it.....mmmmok.
  • #20
  • Nov 21, 2010 11:28pm Nov 21, 2010 11:28pm
Quoting newyear498
mary.. just found out its not zero sum according to investopedia.. oh well most of what I said about banks, brokers. and government having upper hand is still true tho!
use your own brain and don't rely much on website definitions.

according to investopedia (whatever) it's not zero sum in stocks because wealth can be created in stocks? why, because of dividends etc?

so... buy and hold can create wealth due to dividends? well, big deal. same can be said of being on the right side of forex swap payments.

on one hand they discount the trading commissions / fees in their defining zero-sum, but on the other they account for dividends... forex spread and swap is the same deal. it's baked-in incidentals like commission and dividends and swap that after the first week of trading everyone simply ignores as they have bigger issues to deal with, such as not losing money by trading badly which foreshadows these trading incidentals.

zero-sum argument is pointless. be profitable, or not. who cares if you buy your broker a porsche along the way and give some random on the other side of the world a holiday next winter. as long as you can buy an island at the end of the day then you are fine.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
0 traders viewing now