Here's why you're failing to learn how to trade:

[SweetLyrics]

Maybe we have a psychologist here who can comment, but I imagine that, if you were to repeat Daniel Kahnemann's experiments in 20 years' time, you would get pretty much the same results as were obtained the first time (just as you will probably still find that a high proportion of people will continue to live unhealthy lifestyles and waste time watching trash TV).

I hope I'm wrong - I'd love it for people generally to become more enlightened and make more rational decisions - but you're up against strong unconscious forces that are highly resistant to change.

Honestly I don't think human behavior can be regarded as constant.

[ruthlessimon]

I hope I'm wrong - I'd love it for people generally to become more enlightened and make more rational decisions

The problem I have with that, dumb money isn't sustainable.

A constantly losing trader, is just gonna leave eventually, & then what?

Surely a longterm edge needs "smart dumb" money. Maybe a trader is content with making £5k a yr - they're a consistent player in the market, but because they are unwilling to improve (don't know the potential), they create inefficiency for someone else.

[SweetLyrics]

I dunno. William Hill have been in business for many years (since 1934). That suggests that they have had a constant stream of losing punters, over several decades, and continue to do so.

Plus, you shouldn't presume to know who you are up against in the market. Is it your casual punter? Or is it, to a large extent, bookmakers hedging their bets? I don't know (nor, frankly, do I care, as it's not something that I need to know).

The problem I have with that, dumb money isn't sustainable.

[ShaunWhite]

I hope I'm wrong - I'd love it for people generally to become more enlightened and make more rational decisions

The problem I have with that, dumb money isn't sustainable.

A constantly losing trader, is just gonna leave eventually, & then what?

Another one comes along. There's a constant flow of losing punters and traders all making the same rookie mistakes.

[SweetLyrics]

+1

Humans are profoundly irrational, and that will probably never change, as it has a strong basis in evolution.

This is why, for example, many people will spend top dollar on a brand new iPhone when their existing phone does everything they need a phone to do, or why people will spend an extra £100 on a pair of Jeans with a fancy logo on them (even though they were probably made in the same factory as my ASDA George jeans costing £9.99).

Another one comes along. There's a constant flow of losing punters and traders all making the same rookie mistakes.

[ruthlessimon]

Incidentally, I suspect edges based on human behaviour are more durable than those based on fundamentals.

You can't escape the need for fundamentals - & what makes things tricky, the two seem linked (i.e. human behaviour & price)

[SweetLyrics]

How do you know this?

I imagine that many successful traders just make decisions based on what's happening in the market.

You can't escape the need for fundamentals - & what makes things tricky, the two seem linked (i.e. human behaviour & price)

[ruthlessimon]

How do you know this?

Luck & spreadsheets

I imagine that many successful traders just make decisions based on what's happening in the market.

Yeah that's true, I'm sure that's the majority position. I'm just offering a counterview

[SweetLyrics]

A very vague response, but I suspect that you have no way of knowing that fundamentals are needed to profit from the market.

Just because you haven't (yet) found a profitable method that relies purely on price and volume doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

How do you know this?

Luck & spreadsheets

I imagine that many successful traders just make decisions based on what's happening in the market.

Yeah that's true, I'm sure that's the majority position. I'm just offering a counterview

[ruthlessimon]

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

For a layman like me, could you explain simply what "Absence of proof is not proof of absence" means? & how it relates to my statement: "human behaviour & price seem linked"

[SweetLyrics]

Try telling that to this woman - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50834994

The problem I have with that, dumb money isn't sustainable.

[ruthlessimon]

Try telling that to this woman - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50834994

The problem I have with that, dumb money isn't sustainable.

Fair enough

That's some salary for doing naff all; like it

[SweetLyrics]

I suggest you read Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow.

He talks about how irrational gut-based assessments can survive despite repeated failure, as there is always a sense that 'this time it's different' (which applies to traders as well as punters). Basically, people think that they are smarter than they are.

Try telling that to this woman - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50834994

The problem I have with that, dumb money isn't sustainable.

Fair enough

That's some salary for doing naff all; like it

[stueytrader]

I think in this issue of the fact that there's been enough people out there to win mass votes for idiotic choices, such as Donald Trump, and Brexit, working class people voting for Tories.....

It just shows that there's plenty masses of poorly informed and poorly mentally equipped people in this world.

Then there's the ethics question - are winning traders basically living off less intelligent people's mistakes? An interesting thought to ponder if a pro.

[napshnap]

Then there's the ethics question - are winning traders basically living off less intelligent people's mistakes? An interesting thought to ponder if a pro.

We traders provide those people with better odds and thus make their entertainment much longer. So no moral dilemma for me, don't be fooled by leftists bullshit.