How many consistently profitable traders around? | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Anyone consistently profitable using Expert Advisors? 45 replies

Which Brokers Do Consistently Profitable Live Traders Use? 2 replies

How long did it take to become consistently profitable? 117 replies

Your consistently profitable trading style 37 replies

Consistently Profitable Signal Journal: Simple, Low Maintenance Gains 0 replies

Attachments: How many consistently profitable traders around?
Exit Attachments

How many consistently profitable traders around?

  • #1
  • First Post: Jan 18, 2017 3:16pm Jan 18, 2017 3:16pm
Hi All,

I started live trading in May 2015. I will complete two years this may. Till now have blown up accounts worth USD 6000. Left forex for a few months. Started with leftover $ 58.48 from last blown account. I see that I have developed more discipline now or at least that is what I feel. Slowly building up the account from here on. I will invest money in this account only if I can convince myself that I can be consistently profitable.

On that note, I was wondering how many members at FF are consistently profitable? Let's define consistently profitable as: "The trader who has now blown any account in last three years and have been profitable for at least 29 of last 36 months. Also, it would be helpful if traders can declare how much profit, on average, did they make month on month basis on percentage of equity.
  • #2
  • Edited 10:50pm Jan 18, 2017 10:36pm | Edited 10:50pm
Another predictably short thread ....
  • #3
  • Jan 19, 2017 5:16am Jan 19, 2017 5:16am
Quoting Mingary
Another predictably short thread ....
A: I made 4.7 million last calendar year speculating on usdjpy

Q: Can you prove it?
A: I can show you my equity curve screenshot.

Q: That is not good enough, most likely it will be photoshoped. Can you whow me a trade explorer attached to your real account?
A: And why would I expose that information publicly?

Conclusion: You are a scammer!
A: Why did I bother in the first place...?
  • #4
  • Jan 19, 2017 5:28am Jan 19, 2017 5:28am
Quoting kpclick
{quote} A: I made 4.7 million last calendar year speculating on usdjpy Q: Can you prove it? A: I can show you my equity curve screenshot. Q: That is not good enough, most likely it will be photoshoped. Can you whow me a trade explorer attached to your real account? A: And why would I expose that information publicly? Conclusion: You are a scammer! A: Why did I bother in the first place...?

So, can you prove that Unicorns do exist ?
  • #5
  • Jan 19, 2017 5:32am Jan 19, 2017 5:32am
Quoting Mingary
{quote} So, can you prove that Unicorns do exist ?
I can prove, right after you answer my question: "why water boils?" (you forgot that one)
  • #6
  • Jan 19, 2017 5:41am Jan 19, 2017 5:41am
Quoting kpclick
{quote} I can prove, right after you answer my question: "why water boils?" (you forgot that one)
Why water boils ?
Because as water is heated the H2O molecules in the liquid state get converted to gaseous state

... your turn.
  • #7
  • Jan 19, 2017 5:43am Jan 19, 2017 5:43am
Quoting kpclick
{quote}Can you whow me a trade explorer attached to your real account?
And a tax statement! And don't tell us you're under investigation. *lol*

I agree with kpclick and in addition to what he said I'd like to mention that ...

Quoting harupit
Let's define consistently profitable as: "The trader who has now blown any account in last three years and have been profitable for at least 29 of last 36 months.
I would qualify BUT why is that important? Would you use the same rules to assess a business? I wouldn't for some very good reasons. The point in trading is to make money bottom line (it really is similar to business) - to win more than you lose. Consistency is statistically much easier achieved with many (short term) trades than with a few (long term) trades but the only thing that is actually of any relevance is that you made money at all.

I know very successful traders who blow at least one account every year. I wouldn't say they gamble also it might look like that for many people ...

Trading is simply not like having a job. If you want that monthly paycheck do yourself a favour and get a (real) job. And no, don't start a business, it will probably not qualify as well, at least not under the rules you made up.
  • #8
  • Jan 19, 2017 5:46am Jan 19, 2017 5:46am
Quoting Mingary
{quote} Why water boils ? Because as water is heated the H2O molecules in the liquid state get converted to gaseous state ... your turn.
Good technical answer, but is not the correct one.

If I can refer back to our discussion in the other thread, the context was about people having rigid mindset and not thinking flexibly.

Correct answer to the question "why water boils?" is this: it boils, because I want to make some tea.


And in that perspective, here is your unicorn:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...sil-kazakhstan

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: 822.jpg Size: 32 KB


The unicorn might not be how you imagined it, but none less it is a real unicorn...
  • #9
  • Jan 19, 2017 6:36am Jan 19, 2017 6:36am
Quoting kpclick
{quote} Good technical answer, but is not the correct one. If I can refer back to our discussion in the other thread, the context was about people having rigid mindset and not thinking flexibly. Correct answer to the question "why water boils?" is this: it boils, because I want to make some tea. And in that perspective, here is your unicorn: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...sil-kazakhstan {image} The unicorn might not be how you imagined it, but none less it is a real unicorn... {image}...
I see.
You did not ask the right question, then. "it boils, because I want to make some tea" is the answer for this question "what is the purpose of the water boiling"

Regarding the Unicorns. The question was " can you prove that Unicorns do exist? " and not "can you prove that Unicorns are extinct?"

I am afraid the ball is still in your court
  • #10
  • Jan 19, 2017 6:49am Jan 19, 2017 6:49am
Quoting harupit
Hi All, I started live trading in May 2015. I will complete two years this may. Till now have blown up accounts worth USD 6000. Left forex for a few months. Started with leftover $ 58.48 from last blown account. I see that I have developed more discipline now or at least that is what I feel. Slowly building up the account from here on. I will invest money in this account only if I can convince myself that I can be consistently profitable. On that note, I was wondering how many members at FF are consistently profitable? Let's define consistently...
I don’t think that question can get a comprehensive answer without a statistics report from a proper survey. There are a lot of myths regarding how much people profit (and lose) from Forex, but actual facts relating to large groups of traders are difficult to come by.
  • #11
  • Jan 19, 2017 6:50am Jan 19, 2017 6:50am
Quoting Mingary
{quote} I see. You did not ask the right question, then. "it boils, because I want to make some tea" is the answer for this question "what is the purpose of the water boiling" Regarding the Unicorns. The question was " can you prove that Unicorns do exist? " and not "can you prove that Unicorns are extinct?" I am afraid the ball is still in your court
But that was not my question. I asked about purpose indirectly, that is true. But it not how I formulated the question precisely to show how a mind get anchored (not only yours btw).

And you never asked about contemporary living unicorns. You asked to prove if unicorns do exists. We could argue about grammar and usage of more appropriate tenses, but then, English is not the only language and in many other languages the question would sound exactly the same in either context. And btw, Siberia is very large, undiscovered area, I would not be surprised if one of them still roams around. Many species though to be distinct somehow reappear magically.

Point is this: a) formulation of definition usually already bias us for an answer and b) being a profitable trader depends a lot of definition of profitable, as JensG already suggested.

So... what all this stuff has to do with trading?

How about this classic example, just some food for though, I am pretty sure it has been mentioned here many times before.... The same instrument, the same moment, different time frames...

Question: is the price trending up, trending down or consolidating?

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Capture.PNG Size: 77 KB
  • #12
  • Jan 19, 2017 6:53am Jan 19, 2017 6:53am
I've never seen a unicorn.
But I've seen a flying pig

Inserted Video
"You may say I am a dreamer .... but I am not the only one."
  • #13
  • Jan 19, 2017 6:58am Jan 19, 2017 6:58am
Quoting mlawson71
{quote} I dont think that question can get a comprehensive answer without a statistics report from a proper survey. There are a lot of myths regarding how much people profit (and lose) from Forex, but actual facts relating to large groups of traders are difficult to come by.
And particularly from people who actually makes some money... at the end of day this is an online forum. For sake of what, somebody who worked hard to make his/her method profitable would a) announce that left and right and b) share some proves and details with some strangers? They would not, so automatically any response, whatever statistically quasi-valid is being skewed already. Do "you" show your other assets or income on any other public forums? Why not?

Btw, those 4.7 millions... was pesos... or maybe not
  • #14
  • Jan 19, 2017 7:11am Jan 19, 2017 7:11am
Quoting kpclick
{quote} But that was not my question. I asked about purpose indirectly, that is true. But it not how I formulated the question precisely to show how a mind get anchored (not only yours btw). And you never asked about contemporary living unicorns. You asked to prove if unicorns do exists. We could argue about grammar and usage of more appropriate tenses, but then, English is not the only language and in many other languages the question would sound exactly the same in either context. And btw, Siberia is very large, undiscovered area, I would not...
Ok, how about this:
If a creature does exist it certainly means that it cannot be extinct.
Siberia may be a large undiscovered area but lack of evidence is not proof of existence.
and English is a very precise language.

Your question: is the price trending up, trending down or consolidating?
To me the answer is: neither
There is no trend up or down or consolidation as an absolute. They are all of these things or any of these things or none of those things, all at the same time.
  • #15
  • Jan 19, 2017 7:20am Jan 19, 2017 7:20am
Quoting Mingary
{quote} Ok, how about this: If a creature does exist it certainly means that it cannot be extinct. Siberia may be a large undiscovered area but lack of evidence is not proof of existence.
True. But also lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence I already know what contr-argument you might want to bring. But...as I mentioned in the other thread, it is hard to, if not impossible, to prove anything fundamentally. Because, any methodology, logic, science, anything, if you dig deep enough, has to be based of kind of dogma - which ultimately means faith.

Quoting Mingary
{quote} Your question: is the price trending up, trending down or consolidating? To me the answer is: neither There is no trend up or down or consolidation as an absolute. They are all of these things or any of these things or none of those things, all at the same time.
With this approach you throw out of windows a) all methods based on trend (supposedly holy grail) and b) all methods on fading consolidation edges. Obviously if price is all of those at the same time, none of those methods should works, because practical implementation of each, contradict each other...
  • #16
  • Edited 7:41am Jan 19, 2017 7:28am | Edited 7:41am
Quoting kpclick
{quote} True. But also lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence I already know what contr-argument you might want to bring. But...as I mentioned in the other thread, it is hard to, if not impossible, to prove anything fundamentally. Because, any methodology, logic, science, anything, if you dig deep enough, has to be based of kind of dogma - which ultimately means faith. {quote} With this approach you throw out of windows a) all methods based on trend (supposedly holy grail) and b) all methods on fading consolidation edges. Obviously...
if lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence AND lack of evidence is not proof of existence then the only conclusion is: we don't know. And that is the correct answer.
Faith is not needed and not necessary. How does digging deep enough (finding a bigger problem or more questions) imply faith ?

"With this approach you throw out of ...."
Yes indeed. That is exactly right, and good riddance (:
  • #17
  • Jan 19, 2017 7:30am Jan 19, 2017 7:30am
Quoting Mingary
{quote} Yes indeed. That is exactly right.
... and I am not saying this is a wrong conclusion... just food for though...
  • #18
  • Jan 19, 2017 7:34am Jan 19, 2017 7:34am
Quoting kpclick
{quote} ... and I am not saying this is a wrong conclusion... just food for though...

I am saying this is the right conclusion (:
  • #19
  • Jan 19, 2017 7:41am Jan 19, 2017 7:41am
Quoting Mingary
{quote} faith is not needed and not necessary. How does digging deep enough (finding a bigger problem or more questions) imply faith ? "With this approach you throw out of ...." Yes indeed. That is exactly right, and good riddance (:
I use "faith" for lack of more appropriate description, in a very wide sense of this word, not necessary religious.

Faith as a conviction of chosen dogmas being fundamental by definition. There is no other way around, regardless of a subject in question. Keyword here is "chosen". And individual has to make decision if specific assumptions are acceptable and can become dogmas, before moving forward with further investigations and conclusion on a subject. Dogmas are not questionable (otherwise they would not be dogmas) and therefor are subject of faith.

There is no other way around... for us humans
  • #20
  • Jan 19, 2017 7:46am Jan 19, 2017 7:46am
Quoting kpclick
{quote} I use "faith" for lack of more appropriate description, in a very wide sense of this word, not necessary religious. Faith as a conviction of chosen dogmas being fundamental by definition. There is no other way around, regardless of a subject in question. Keyword here is "chosen". And individual has to make decision if specific assumptions are acceptable and can become dogmas, before moving forward with further investigations and conclusion on a subject. Dogmas are not questionable (otherwise they would not be dogmas) and therefor are subject...
I have a serious issue with anything that is not questionable, or rather with anything that we are not allowed to questioned.
Atheists don't have an easy life
0 traders viewing now