The 95% of losers, it's true? | Page 3 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Winners scale winners, losers scale losers 12 replies

POLL: Are you profitable? Is the 95% losers myth true? 32 replies

If losers average losers, then I am a loser 10 replies

Zalesky - 25 Rules Of Trading - Winners Bigger Than Losers 5 replies

Winner vs. Losers (Size) - Could Use Some Advice. 11 replies

Attachments: The 95% of losers, it's true?
Exit Attachments

The 95% of losers, it's true?

  • #41
  • Edited Nov 27, 2012 12:12am Nov 26, 2012 11:41pm | Edited Nov 27, 2012 12:12am
Quoting h96
@nubcake

Great job, you are critisizing the grammar of a non-native English-speaker, in an international Forum, well done!
cry me a river. nobody is stopping you from posting somewhere relevant to your native language.

Quote
Please 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%.
so you are just splitting-hairs for the sake of being annoying. it's all been covered before. most people can't win because most people don't have the expertise. all losers will lose over different amounts of time. therefore, any time-slice report of winners and losers is inaccurate at best, generally misleading, and at worst is just plain wrong.

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!
  • #42
  • Nov 27, 2012 12:11am Nov 27, 2012 12:11am
Quoting nubcake
whether or not the number is 95% is really beside the point.
I suggest you to read the threadtitle again

Have found various statistics that 80-85% of traders lose. If it's been al covered before than please show me one single statistic/research for this 95% number. You won't find one.

Its people like you that are obviously losing and are one the quest finding an excuse for their loses. So they are saying "95% of all traders are losing, so it's not my fault!" in order to feel good. Please don't take it personally (with your choleric character you certainl wont do ), because it's just human nature.

I really recommend you to cool down a bit, its just a number, not religion.
  • #43
  • Nov 27, 2012 12:18am Nov 27, 2012 12:18am
Quoting h96
I suggest you to read the threadtitle again

Have found various statistics that 80-85% of traders lose. If it's been al covered before than please show me one single statistic/research for this 95% number. You won't find one.

Its people like you that are obviously losing and are one the quest finding an excuse for their loses. So they are saying "95% of all traders are losing, so it's not my fault!" in order to feel good. Please don't take it personally (with your choleric character you certainl wont do ), because it's just human...
and i suggest you re-read my last post which i just finished editing and you would have missed while you were typing... you are basically saying the same damn thing i am! but for some reason you are fascinated with this "95%" number as though it even actually matters.

you won't find decent research to show any number.... so pointless thread is pointless, and pointless fascination with the number 95 is pointless. it's "just a number", and probably still a low-balled number at that. get over it, or bring something to the table to suggest a more appropriate number.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #44
  • Nov 27, 2012 12:19am Nov 27, 2012 12:19am
Quoting h96
And thats the point, so what if we:
-exclude all the stupid dreamers with their martingale MM or stupid 99$ EA.
-take in account traders, who are in the game for over 1 year
Why 1 year? Why not 3 months, or 3 years, or 10 years? What types of MM are valid? What about folk who use less severe staking progressions than martingale, or average down, or don't use stoplosses? What about people who make 500% in their first month of trading?

Hence it becomes a question of where you draw the line as to what constitutes a "trader", a completely arbitrary and subjective definition. You could frame your data in such a way as to show that 0% are profitable, or that 100% are profitable. Totally meaningless.
  • #45
  • Nov 27, 2012 12:42am Nov 27, 2012 12:42am
@nubcake
thanks for answering.
It's not me who's so vehement insisting on this number. It's so many other people always talking about this 95-99% number.
I heard the average failure rate in most business is about 80%. That is near to the numbers I expect for FX. So why should the failure rate in FX significantly higher? You want more statisctics? There you go: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/ode...l%20110523.pdf

To be honest, I only read the conclusion:
-taiwan stock traders were observed for 15 years
-only 15% were profitable after costs

@hanover

So basicly what you are saying is: There is and can't be any reliable statistic, because there a to many things to factor in, right?
Therefore the 95% number ( or 99% in some cases) is just based on empirical knowledge)
  • #46
  • Edited 1:00am Nov 27, 2012 12:51am | Edited 1:00am
Quoting h96
@nubcake
thanks for answering.
It's not me who's so vehement insisting on this number. It's so many other people always talking about this 95-99% number.
I heard the average failure rate in most business is about 80%. That is near to the numbers I expect for FX. So why should the failure rate in FX significantly higher? You want more statisctics? There you go: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/ode...l%20110523.pdf

To be honest, I only read the conclusion:
-taiwan stock traders were observed for...
honestly, i don't have the time to read stuff at the moment (i have just enough time to post some shitty replies and not much else). maybe later, unless someone else has a read and summarizes it for everyone in the meantime.

but what i would say to your argument about business failure stats is, the difference is the entry requirements!

people can get into this 'game' with a few dollars out of their pocket. it takes more than that to even attempt to start most businesses. yes, some businesses can be created online etc for very low start-up costs, or someone might have some type of product / merchandise they can create relatively cheaply, but in those instances these are people WITH some degree of expertise in their field. an online business doesn't create itself, for example, despite however cheap it is to get a webhost and put-up some ugly webpage.

typical businesses take quite some capital to even attempt to create. people investing their money into a new business enterprise will, unless totally retarded, spend at least some degree of time and energy having learned and researched as much as they can about what they are getting themselves in for. for someone to be a 'trader' takes little more than a few minutes to fill out some details and a credit card number.

with the types of typical questions that people ask over and over and over........ and over....

and ooooooooover.....

and over.... it is really no surprise that most people in the trading world are losers. with the typical shit that gets talked-about and asked etc it's a bit like if someone who was an owner-operater at the local take-away shop that they started with their own hard-earned money was standing at the counter with a bag of freshly cooked fish and chips for a customer and was asking everyone how to count money, and how to open the cash register, and what time should they close, and do they need to wash the dishes before or after closing, etc. it just doesn't, or shouldn't (and if does is rare), happen! but in the trading world this is typical of 'traders'.

basically, any idiot can be a 'trader', but not any idiot can legitimately make money doing it.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #47
  • Nov 27, 2012 1:04am Nov 27, 2012 1:04am
@nubcake

Ok, I got your point. You're right that the low barrier entry of forex is increasing the failure rate. So important questions are:

-are the failure rate at futures the same (requieres at least more funds to get in the game)?
-is in harder to be successful than in any other business?
  • #48
  • Nov 27, 2012 1:07am Nov 27, 2012 1:07am
Quoting h96
So basicly what you are saying is: There is and can't be any reliable statistic, because there a to many things to factor in, right? Therefore the 95% number ( or 99% in some cases) is just based on empirical knowledge)
Yes, that's about it. Anyway, what does it matter what % of other traders are profitable? All that should be important to me is how profitable (or not) I am. And how many other traders are profitable has no effect on my own performance.
  • #49
  • Nov 27, 2012 1:13am Nov 27, 2012 1:13am
Quoting h96
@nubcake

Ok, I got your point. You're right that the low barrier entry of forex is increasing the failure rate. So important questions are:

-are the failure rate at futures the same (requieres at least more funds to get in the game)?
-is in harder to be successful than in any other business?
those are certainly important, or at least interesting, questions.

i would EXPECT that futures traders do better than typical forex traders, but still, i suspect it won't be similar to typical business stats.

but what hasn't been mentioned, and is terribly important, is that the stats for businesses are just like those for trading... derived from who, and for how long, and for what degree of profit, etc? just because some rubbish little shop has been open for 12 months doesn't make them a success. a few months or a year of profits is no guarantee that it won't dwindle and die.

businesses start and stop all of the time while the giants continue to do their thing and survive, and then even some of them fall-over. it could be argued that the business stats are low-balled too, but that is coming from a point of view of someone who hasn't actually bothered to read the pdf yet.

again, it's just like hanover said about trading. there are a number of variables to consider, and so its complexity lends itself to being a difficult, if not impossible, figure to accurately portray. a comprehensive report would be difficult to compile. at best all one can do is observe the world around them and come to some reasonable conclusion. my conclusion is that traders are almost all losing in one way or another despite whatever their p/l suggests. you don't get paid for doing nothing, you get paid for expertise. there aren't many experts.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #50
  • Nov 27, 2012 1:15am Nov 27, 2012 1:15am
Quoting hanover
Yes, that's about it. Anyway, what does it matter what % of other traders are profitable? All that should be important to me is how profitable (or not) I am. And how many other traders are profitable has no effect on my own performance.

Sure, statisctics are irrelevant for individuals. but the thing is. If it's nearly impossible to trade profitable ( and I've higher chances winning the lottery than succeed in trading, stated by the poster you linked), than why should I spend my time with trading, instead of other businesses?

Beeing successful is hard in every type of business, but the question is, if its significantly harder in trading than in anything else?
  • #51
  • Nov 27, 2012 2:57am Nov 27, 2012 2:57am
i think at the end of the day what really matters is if and when you quit, are you net positive....

no matter if you traded for 1 month or 10 years, if you made money and just walk away, then then is true success imo

you can say, well why quit when you're making money? but that's the thing, good traders make a lot of money and move on

like this guy (starts at 5:49)
NocturnalFX is no longer offering commercial services
  • #52
  • Nov 27, 2012 4:46am Nov 27, 2012 4:46am
It doesn't matter if it's 95% or 85% losers although I believe it could be around that range.

The most important thing is whether you are a loser or a winner. How many % gain did you make for the past let's say 90 days?

For me I prefer to be conservative when I take trade positions. 5-15% gain are good for me.

Remember to practice strict money management (do not risk more than 3% in any trade) and you'll last longer in the forex trading world.
  • #53
  • Dec 1, 2012 8:29am Dec 1, 2012 8:29am
Any fool can trade and claim that he/she is a trader, but it takes much more to be a consistently profitable professional trader. Suffice to say the only statistics that is valid IMHO is that 100% of people (that includes the writer of this post) came into the forex world with false confidence, underestimating the difficulty involved in being profitable in this kind of trading. This is clearly evident in the balance of their first demo/real account.

I guess, like anything in life success in forex has a price tag. Those who are willing to pay end up at the top, and they stay hush hush.

As to exactly how many are winning or losing bears little relevance to our profitability.
  • #54
  • Dec 1, 2012 1:41pm Dec 1, 2012 1:41pm
Quoting TPOTrader
i think at the end of the day what really matters is if and when you quit, are you net positive....

no matter if you traded for 1 month or 10 years, if you made money and just walk away, then then is true success imo

you can say, well why quit when you're making money? but that's the thing, good traders make a lot of money and move on

like this guy (starts at 5:49)
If a person knows how to trade profitably (and is able to adapt his approach to suit any changes that might occur in the market), then there's no need for him to ever quit. That's how the market wizards operate: find a positive expectancy method, then rinse and repeat, over and over.

People who quit when they're ahead, or need to withdraw money from the account before they lose it, are merely guessing and gambling.
  • #55
  • Dec 11, 2012 1:53pm Dec 11, 2012 1:53pm
A lot of people are losers in the Forex business and not because trading is particularly hard but because they have no discipline and very little capital to invest.
  • #56
  • Dec 11, 2012 2:14pm Dec 11, 2012 2:14pm
Quoting hanover
If a person knows how to trade profitably (and is able to adapt his approach to suit any changes that might occur in the market), then there's no need for him to ever quit. That's how the market wizards operate: find a positive expectancy method, then rinse and repeat, over and over.

People who quit when they're ahead, or need to withdraw money from the account before they lose it, are merely guessing and gambling.
well i guess i've been guessing and gambling the last 6 years of trading.

I have this magic number that i want my account to reach at before i quit. BY quitting, i mean actively quit from daytrading. I always have this cautionary fear that brokers can go bust and your 'account' which is nothing more than just electronic nubmers can dissapear just like that.

I want to use the money to invest in hard tangible asssets (properties, land, etc.) At least those things don't just dissapear in thin air..(maybe during a nuke)
NocturnalFX is no longer offering commercial services
  • #57
  • Dec 11, 2012 2:15pm Dec 11, 2012 2:15pm
I don't think capital is important to success or failure, if you use money management then its not an issue.


Its more so how dedicated you are, a lot of people who get into Forex do it as a side venture. So they have a side venture mentality when it comes to the education process of actually learning to trade etc etc. While others who identify from the start that they want Forex to be a main part of there life they have a more dedicated mentally and in general are more successful because it is something they want.
  • #58
  • Dec 11, 2012 2:48pm Dec 11, 2012 2:48pm
Quoting Acroix70
I don't think capital is important to success or failure, if you use money management then its not an issue.


Its more so how dedicated you are, a lot of people who get into Forex do it as a side venture. So they have a side venture mentality when it comes to the education process of actually learning to trade etc etc. While others who identify from the start that they want Forex to be a main part of there life they have a more dedicated mentally and in general are more successful because it is something they want.
I've found that capital is often an issue for new traders. Most traders start with 500-2000$ and expect that they can transform that into millions in a matter of a year of two. That greed will push a lot of traders to take massive risks and in the end will result in their failure. Trading with a larger account is easier because you don't need to trade much to get results and can thus prepare each trade much more carefully. A larger account will also allow you to make a living out of Forex while keeping your leverage at a very reasonable level.
  • #59
  • Dec 11, 2012 3:18pm Dec 11, 2012 3:18pm
Quoting valdor
I've found that capital is often an issue for new traders. Most traders start with 500-2000$ and expect that they can transform that into millions in a matter of a year of two. That greed will push a lot of traders to take massive risks and in the end will result in their failure. Trading with a larger account is easier because you don't need to trade much to get results and can thus prepare each trade much more carefully. A larger account will also allow you to make a living out of Forex while keeping your leverage at a very reasonable level.
Your first point is true but wouldn't be an issue is these particular people took a more serious attitude to money management and education. Yes a larger account is going to net larger returns easier than a smaller account but I was referring to the topic of winners/losing. Account size means nothing if you don't know how to trade, it will just be a longer death instead of a fast one.
  • #60
  • Dec 12, 2012 5:20am Dec 12, 2012 5:20am
http://www.forexfactory.com/showthre...86#post6285386
0 traders viewing now