95% traders go broke, only 5% survive | Page 16 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Strategy behind 1 EA (buy only) and 1 EA (sell only) 2 replies

Script to change EA to long only/ short only at a price level? 1 reply

Myth Buster: 90-95% of traders cannot survive in trading 32 replies

Wouldn't it be good if during flat markets you only broke even on trades 4 replies

how can banks survive if all traders win 19 replies

Attachments: 95% traders go broke, only 5% survive
Exit Attachments

95% traders go broke, only 5% survive

  • #301
  • Edited 6:43pm Mar 10, 2014 6:23pm | Edited 6:43pm
Quoting MapleLeaf
{quote} First of all, according to official FOREX BROKER STATS, only 0.4% of traders end profitable after 1 year of trading. These are official stats. Second, You can't be so "innocent" to believe what all that people here claim or say about their INFLATED FAKE EARNINGS... Specially in the FOREX WORLD or FOREX FORUMS. Do you really believe all the FAKE numbers you see here, in FOREX BOOK or in ZULU TRADE? Seriously?... Again, according to official BROKER STATS reported to the US GOV, only 0.4% of traders are profitable after 1 year of live trading....
Okay Mr MaplefuckingLeaf I want to shut that hole in your face for good. Ill take you up on your freaking challenge and take whats left from the gifts you gave to bucket-shops, EA vendors and fucked up mentors, and Ill do it with one of my small live account with FXPRO ($30,000) Ill open a trade explorer with the name KICKMAPLELEAFASS and everyone can view as i progress. Kickoff date is 1st April 2014. So how much exactly are you offering and how do I get my money? Im not BULLSHITING Bro, IM DEAD SERIOUS!!
  • #302
  • Mar 10, 2014 8:14pm Mar 10, 2014 8:14pm
Quoting MapleLeaf
{quote} First of all, according to official FOREX BROKER STATS, only 0.4% of traders end profitable after 1 year of trading. These are official stats. Second, You can't be so "innocent" to believe what all that people here claim or say about their INFLATED FAKE EARNINGS... Specially in the FOREX WORLD or FOREX FORUMS. Do you really believe all the FAKE numbers you see here, in FOREX BOOK or in ZULU TRADE? Seriously?... Again, according to official BROKER STATS reported to the US GOV, only 0.4% of traders are profitable after 1 year of live trading....
That's just pure made up nonsens.
0,4% If it's official numbers, just provide us a link ... Numbers of positive accounts are approx. beetween 30 and 45% depending on brokers. Someone provided a link to forexmagnates with the CFTC stats just above.

Why am I answering to someone like this ?
  • #303
  • Edited 11:23pm Mar 10, 2014 9:20pm | Edited 11:23pm
Quoting Mevo
just provide us a link
Here is the research that MapleLeaf is referring to. Now if I understand correctly, Mr Forman sampled 8,000 traders, of which 30 (0.4%) attained profit in every one of four consecutive quarters. Now if (for example) a trader made $10,000 in Q1, $10,000 in Q2, lost $100 in Q3, and made $10,000 in Q4 he would be ahead $29,900, but would be in the 99.6% that "failed", according to the way Mr Forman framed his statistics.

The data in the forexmagnates site is more up-to-date, and its sample size is more than 12 times greater than Mr Forman's. But to be fair, we're not comparing apples with apples. If 45.3% of accounts on a br0ker's books (see screenshot — source here) are currently profitable, we don't know how many of these will continue to be profitable 3, 6, 12, etc months from now. As is always the case with statistics, we can frame data to suit our own agenda; we can define "profitable" in many different ways.

So is the real number nearer 0.4%? Or 45.3%? I'd say that it doesn't really matter. The majority of retail traders lose; we all know that! But to insist over and over and over again that it's no less than 99.6% who fail; accuse anybody who dares to question that of selling forex products; and offer a pointless bet that proves nothing — all of this suggests that MapleLeaf has an obvious agenda all of his own.
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Image 014.png Size: 55 KB
  • #304
  • Mar 10, 2014 10:27pm Mar 10, 2014 10:27pm
You statement that three quarter make more money one quarter lose less money is not valid. sure some trader did this way, but more trader lose more money in one quarter than the other three quarter. A consistent profiting trader need to make money at least each quarter (not every week) so that he is confident in his strategy and can afford his daily expenditure. I do check on mql5.com, there are many profitable account but only 9 accounts longer than 52 weeks can maintain less than 15% drawdown and make more than 25% profit.

I have show you why 0.4% consistent profit trader is valid.
1. statement 0.4% make consistent money can be calculated.
as the brokers shows quarterly 25-30% make money.
this means for those who make money for a series of 4 quarters the probability is 0.25^4-0.3^4= 0.4%-0.8% which means the PH.D study report is valid.

2. how much ratio trader make money yearly. 6%
this is quite easy to calculate. if someone make two profit quarters and profit is higher than the losing two quarters, he may make money.
just 0.25^2-0.3^2=6%-9%.
ASAF YIGAL from currensee said only 6% trader is profitable by a year base. This means it is valid.

3. how many can make money for 3-4 years
A Chinese forex community said out of 2700 traders, there are 10 consistent profit trader for over one year, 5 over 2 years, 2 over 3 years. none over 4 years yet. which means totally consistent profiting ratio is 17/2700=0.6%. which again validate the 0.4% profitable statement. long term profitable retail trading can be even less 0.2% or less.






Quoting hanover
{quote} Here is the research that MapleLeaf is referring to. Now if I understand correctly, Mr Forman sampled 8,000 traders, of which 30 (0.4%) attained profit in every one of four consecutive quarters. Now if (for example) a trader made $10,000 in Q1, $10,000 in Q2, lost $100 in Q3, and made $10,000 in Q4 he would be ahead $29,900, but would be in the 99.6% that "failed", according to the way Mr Forman framed his statistics. The...
  • #305
  • Mar 10, 2014 10:34pm Mar 10, 2014 10:34pm
Quoting hanover
{quote} Here is the research that MapleLeaf is referring to. Now if I understand correctly, Mr Forman sampled 8,000 traders, of which 30 (0.4%) attained profit in every one of four consecutive quarters. Now if (for example) a trader made $10,000 in Q1, $10,000 in Q2, lost $100 in Q3, and made $10,000 in Q4 he would be ahead $29,900, but would be in the 99.6% that "failed", according to the way Mr Forman framed his statistics. The...
Thanks for stating the facts in such an unbiased elegant manner and tone for all us Hanover
"To hold, you must first open your hand. Let go." - Lao Tzu
  • #306
  • Mar 10, 2014 10:52pm Mar 10, 2014 10:52pm
Quoting Makavell
{quote} Okay Mr MaplefuckingLeaf I want to shut that hole in your face for good. Ill take you up on your freaking challenge and take whats left from the gifts you gave to bucket-shops, EA vendors and fucked up mentors, and Ill do it with one of my small live account with FXPRO ($30,000) Ill open a trade explorer with the name KICKMAPLELEAFASS and everyone can view as i progress. Kickoff date is 1st April 2014. So how much exactly are you offering and how do I get my money? Im not BULLSHITING Bro, IM DEAD SERIOUS!!
l

Mr Mapleleaf I hope you're not chickening out here cause Im DEAD SERIOUS!!!
  • #307
  • Mar 10, 2014 11:45pm Mar 10, 2014 11:45pm
Quoting Makavell
{quote} Okay Mr MaplefuckingLeaf I want to shut that hole in your face for good. Ill take you up on your freaking challenge and take whats left from the gifts you gave to bucket-shops, EA vendors and fucked up mentors, and Ill do it with one of my small live account with FXPRO ($30,000) Ill open a trade explorer with the name KICKMAPLELEAFASS and everyone can view as i progress. Kickoff date is 1st April 2014. So how much exactly are you offering and how do I get my money? Im not BULLSHITING Bro, IM DEAD SERIOUS!!
FINALLY! Now we finally have someone willing to back up what he says instead of running around saying "I make 10's of thousands each month and I don't care if anyone believes it". ANYBODY can litter a forum with posts like that. It happens all the time here at the forum with people claiming to be wildly successful and then sayng "I don't care if anyone believes me"... and these people NEVER provide verifable proof. It takes someone with with real integrity and guts to "put their money where there mouth is" as the old saying goes. And it appears Makavell is the only one here not scared of the challenge.

Okay, MapleLeaf, what's the next step for you and Makavell to get this thing going?
"Dream big and dare to fail." - Norman Vaughan
  • #308
  • Edited 3:07pm Mar 11, 2014 12:47am | Edited 3:07pm
Quoting yunben
this means for those who make money for a series of 4 quarters the probability is 0.25^4-0.3^4= 0.4%-0.8% which means the PH.D study report is valid.
With respect, there is at least one flaw in your logic. The forexmagnates data states that an average of 336 out of 1,000 traders (33.6%) were profitable in a certain quarter. Then let us assume that 336 are likewise profitable in each of the next three quarters.

Now, at one extreme of the spectrum of possibility is that these are the same 336 traders: then the percentage of traders that are profitable in all four quarters is 33.6%.

At the other extreme of the spectrum is the possibility that every one of these traders has a least one unprofitable quarter: then the percentage of traders that are profitable in all four quarters is 0%.

Hence all we can say is that the number of traders that were profitable over all four quarters lies somewhere between 0% and 33.6%. That is the most that we can infer from the available data, as it does not tell us which traders are profitable from one quarter to the next. Hence saying that it is 0.336^4 is not necessarily correct.

Also, the data does not tell us how many of the failures are from new traders' accounts. For example, if the same 33.6% were profitable, a large part of the other 66.4% could represent fresh blood. Hence the 33.6% would represent an overstatement.

Moreover, results can be further skewed by systems that are propped up by money management that is ultimately unsustainable: for example, some martingales can remain profitable for several months, before they suddenly wipe out the trader's account.

And of course the data doesn't tell us how profitable (or otherwise) the 'average' trader is. That data might be more meaningful.

You're also supposedly assuming that trading is 100% luck; that knowledge and experience are worthless. If it is possible to obtain any kind of edge, then some traders will outperform others, skewing the result away from the 0%, in the direction of the the 33.6%. The more expertise that can potentially be gainfully employed, the further we move away from the 0%. If we pit skilled people against unskilled at any activity, it is reasonable to assume that the skilled will outperform the unskilled; moreover, in a zero sum game, they will capitalize directly at the expense of the unskilled.

If trading is nothing more than luck, then ALL traders will eventually be beaten by spread costs, and will therefore inevitably lose, as folk like MapleLeaf and Mingary are inferring. If you agree with this, then you must believe that all of the ideas and strategies discussed on forex forums are completely worthless, and that a trader would perform equally well (or badly) by basing his entries and exits on a coin toss. So what benefit do you hope to gain by studying the markets? Why bother visiting forums like this one?

Quoting yunben
You statement that three quarter make more money one quarter lose less money is not valid.
My statement that it's possible to have three significantly profitable quarters, and one with a smaller loss, it is perfectly valid. In a successful year, this type of performance fluctuation is fairly typical for hedge funds, and I see no reason why traders couldn't emulate it, especially if market conditions (trending, ranging; more volatile, less volatile; etc etc) are more favorable for a given strategy for part of the year, and less favorable for the other part. In any case, it was merely a counter-example to illustrate that Mr Forman's way of classifying 'success' and 'failure' was selective and arbitrary. For example, if he had presented stats on how many traders were profitable over the course of a full 12 months, instead of a quarter by quarter analysis, the example case I mentioned would have fallen into the category of 'success' rather than 'failure'.
  • #309
  • Mar 11, 2014 2:08am Mar 11, 2014 2:08am
Quoting Ace_1
In regards to MapleLeaf's bet, several people here have said that it entails never having a losing month over the timespan of a year. I did a brief search to try to find the exact challenge he has made, but he has made over 500 posts and I wasn't about to go through all 500 of them. HOWEVER, in my brief search, I DID find a post he made about the bet in reply to someone else of whom had asked about the bet. Here is what MapleLeaf said to the other forum member (I put it in italics) : MapleLeaf said: I wrote the original bet a while ago, I suggest...
indubitably.
I only read excuses.
Real winners would take that bet.
You can cut the pretense like butter in these forums...
  • #310
  • Mar 11, 2014 2:10am Mar 11, 2014 2:10am
Quoting Makavell
{quote} Okay Mr MaplefuckingLeaf I want to shut that hole in your face for good. Ill take you up on your freaking challenge and take whats left from the gifts you gave to bucket-shops, EA vendors and fucked up mentors, and Ill do it with one of my small live account with FXPRO ($30,000) Ill open a trade explorer with the name KICKMAPLELEAFASS and everyone can view as i progress. Kickoff date is 1st April 2014. So how much exactly are you offering and how do I get my money? Im not BULLSHITING Bro, IM DEAD SERIOUS!!
... something tells me this won't happen..
  • #311
  • Mar 11, 2014 6:01am Mar 11, 2014 6:01am
Dear Mr Mapleleaf,

Lets seal this please, don't keep me waiting!
  • #312
  • Mar 11, 2014 7:01am Mar 11, 2014 7:01am
Quoting Xinks10
Allen, there are multimple causes. One is survivorship bias. If you take 1000 forex traders and 5% success, you remain with 50 succesfull traders. Only one of these needs to make be trading 'outside of the box'. I think you'll find this chance lies well within the normal distribution of chances. The other explanation is fraud: it's possible to manipulate your trading history. Only verification by a third party (e.g. myfxbook) provides some warranty against this. You can make good money by pretending to be succesful and selling your solution. Here...
Interesting..thanks.. this is might be the reason why there are a lot of business engage in forex education..with this kind of statistic im planning to start one
sdtprojectsphilippines
  • #313
  • Edited 7:55am Mar 11, 2014 7:24am | Edited 7:55am
Quoting Ace_1
{quote} FINALLY! Now we finally have someone willing to back up what he says instead of running around saying "I make 10's of thousands each month and I don't care if anyone believes it". ANYBODY can litter a forum with posts like that. It happens all the time here at the forum with people claiming to be wildly successful and then sayng "I don't care if anyone believes me"... and these people NEVER provide verifable proof. It takes someone with with real integrity and guts to "put their money where there mouth is" as the old saying goes. And it...
Ace you are warped if you think one has to take a bet or provide highly personal details to validate themselves as a profitable trader! Show me ANY profitable trader that is willing to show verifiable proof on an internet forum. And just what constitutes verifiable proof anyway? NO matter what someone shows the non-believers are going to well non-believe and if you think someone is going to provide log-ins to their account with sensitive information then you are just plain dumb!

Good luck to you and hope you make money in this profession as well

Now so as to not hijack the latest developments, please come out of hiding MapleLeaf as you finally found a suitor to take you on! Makavell, in addition to taking his money if this bet were to actually happen (I'm VERY skeptical it will) you should also make it contingent that he never use his 99.6% number again in any forum posts
  • #314
  • Mar 11, 2014 9:38am Mar 11, 2014 9:38am
OANDA should be paying me for this.....
I am one of their 32.5%

Quoting Ace_1
.... There are too many people in this forum that claim to be a "very successful trader" but they don't officially back it up. I am not calling anyone here a liar, I'm just saying talk is cheap. Instead, show some integrity and back it up OFFICIALLY.
I was skeptical about the value of the trade explorer, but now it is useful.
Last year I made profit every quarter, Q3 was a close shave but you can look for yourselves.
This is a live account with real money.
This year I am trying to repeat with larger trade sizes and account value.
So far on a closed-trade basis I am in profit, but the performance is nothing to get excited about.

Last year the only forex account I had was with Oanda.
Yes I was trading peanuts, this year I am trading 5 times as many peanuts in a separate account.
I am still trading the Oanda account with the same peanuts.
It has taken a long time to become profitable, if that is not tempting fate.
I have about 2 years to make this work at sensible account and trade sizes.
Carbon-Dioxide: the gas of life! https://youtu.be/ttJBdr6eBuo
  • #315
  • Edited 7:56pm Mar 11, 2014 2:33pm | Edited 7:56pm
Quoting yazzie
Ace you are warped if you think one has to take a bet or provide highly personal details to validate themselves as a profitable trader! Show me ANY profitable trader that is willing to show verifiable proof on an internet forum. And just what constitutes verifiable proof anyway? NO matter what someone shows the non-believers are going to well non-believe........
Yaz,

Agree 200% with you. Why should a profitable trader share personal financial information, just to appease the curiosity of voyeurs and skeptics? How does it benefit him to do so? Some naysayers seem to think that those who are profitable somehow owe them a handout: evidence of profitability, free systems, free education, free MT4 programming. There are philanthropists (Seneca_pilot is an example) who give of their time to provide free education, and yet the parasites and freeloaders insist that he has no right to post this unless he first proves that he's profitable. Well, even if the info was worthless, it's still free, for goodness sake, and nobody is compelled to read or use it. But these freeloaders lack the gumption to go away and test its validity for themselves. The laziness and ineptitude of some people never ceases to amaze me.

MapleLeaf's bet is pointless, and proves nothing either way. If Makavell wins the bet, Maple can simply say that he was lucky, or that he's one of the 0.4%, thus "proving" that he was right all along. And if Makavell was to lose, for whatever reason, then Maple will say "I told you so", when the reality is that 12 months trading from one person tells absolutely nothing about the percentage of traders that are long-term profitable. To gain any kind of meaningful result would require a sample size of several hundred traders. Then there is the problem of guaranteeing the payoff; Maple was talking about legal contracts. Well, who is going to pay for those, and to see that they are enforced? Back in 2010, Jacko supposedly ran off with millions, and nobody's managed to track him down yet.

And the whole topic is pointless, in any case. One trader's performance has no bearing on what another trader might or might not be able to make, even more so as return is a function of risk. Moreover, we all know that the vast majority of trading wannabes lose. Whether the fail rate is 80%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.9%, who really cares? Except the gawkers and naysayers, of course. The higher the fallout rate, the less stupid they feel about their own failures.

David
  • #316
  • Mar 11, 2014 2:44pm Mar 11, 2014 2:44pm
so based on statistics it is a good idea to get in with money you can afford to loose, use high leverage, make huge profits (hopefully) and get out?

so it's like a casino, get in, try your luck and get out.
  • #317
  • Mar 11, 2014 2:57pm Mar 11, 2014 2:57pm
Quoting Mingary
{quote} ... something tells me this won't happen..
Exactly.

It's good to clear up for the newbies or people reading this forum for the first time, that Makiavelli (AKA MAKAVELL) is the official Joker over here... In other words, he's the JESTER of Forex Factory.

I wish he was not a joker, so I could easily take 36K from him, while doing nothing... But unfortunately he is a buffon.

Just That...
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
  • #318
  • Mar 11, 2014 2:58pm Mar 11, 2014 2:58pm
Quoting Makavell
{quote} Just ignore the idiot, the punk was so lazy and stupid that he started out following self proclaimed experts on this forum. He went from there to EA hunting! the a...... bought and used every EA in the closet, he even used one from this site www.comegetscrewedea.com written by my dick! the fool lost over ($100,000) and his pants trying out all the phony EA's out there and came to the conclusion that its impossible to make any money trading the fx market. He is so pissed that he vowed to take down...
Makavell please take your own advice. It is a good one. Ignore. You don't own anyone a thing. Like Hanover just said, this bet is completely meaningless, either way. If Mapleleaf wants to prove his claim that 99.6% whatever lose at trading, he can trade himself. Matter closed.
"To hold, you must first open your hand. Let go." - Lao Tzu
  • #319
  • Mar 11, 2014 3:01pm Mar 11, 2014 3:01pm
Quoting Vitez
so based on statistics it is a good idea to get in with money you can afford to loose, use high leverage, make huge profits (hopefully) and get out? so it's like a casino, get in, try your luck and get out.
Right.

We are talking about a Casino Based Business here.
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
  • #320
  • Mar 11, 2014 3:15pm Mar 11, 2014 3:15pm
Quoting MapleLeaf
{quote} Exactly. It's good to clear up for the newbies or people reading this forum for the first time, that Makiavelli (AKA MAKAVELL) is the official Joker over here... In other words, he's the JESTER of Forex Factory. I wish he was not a joker, so I could easily take 36K from him, while doing nothing... But unfortunately he is a buffon. Just That...
I knew the punk would eventually back out cause he has no balls under his pants neither does he have $36k to put where his hole is. If you are so confident of your deranged assertion then be a man for just once in your bulk-passing- loser life and step up to your own challenge. FUCKING COWARD!!!!
0 traders viewing now