Maybe that's because most of the courses in trading do not suggest any means of testing what they teach, while pilot courses do?

On the other hand looking at how people drive out there I start to doubt if drivers courses are indeed much different that those on trading.

Given two types of traders: The first group of traders take comfort in believing that engineers and statisticians cannot represent their private thoughts as a set of rules. The second group of traders subscribe to the belief that algorithms will describe any set of rules with the proviso that engineers have the tools needed to develop a working hypothesis. Please correct me if I'm wrong: It appears to me that Alex is referring to individuals who resist leaving the first group, and Guy is sympathetic to those who are unable to enter the second group.

Alex, there are over 1 billion cars on the planet (based on 2010 numbers, a lot more now, and this number will double within 30 years). I don't think that 99% are crashing. It is another area where after having followed a driving course, accidents run in the very low digits.

I have the impression that you don't like my conclusions relating to trading courses. Be assured, all courses are not created equal, hopefully.

I offer the observation that is attributed to Richard Dennis - "I always say you could publish the rules in the newspaper and no one would follow them". Might it simply be that even if someone learns what they should do, when it comes to trading that is far different than actually doing it?

When I am working with a new trader and he starts a sentence with "I know I shouldn't take a trade here", what comes next is critical. If the next word is "but" I am pretty sure I will eventually fire him however if he then says "so I won't", I know he has a chance to make it in the business.

Yup, you're right. I run an algo trading service and I can pick the members who will last by talking to them. If I hear, well I knew "(insert whatever here)" report was coming out and I wanted to (insert whatever here)" He/she will not make it.

SImply stated and true. It occurs to me, Alex, that this and some of your other posts would make for a good topic at the San Francisco Behavioral Finance Symposium this year. Would you be interested in speaking for at that event? Let's discuss at your convenience. Rick@BehavioralFinance.com

True for day trading: you loose on the spread twice. So 60% accuracy is loosing. If you act as a mechanic, then its long hours, a fixed low income, and a repetitive job. Arbitrage is crowded. Market making mirroring is higher cost. So what skill do you bring ? What do you want to do all day ?

Stephane, could you please elaborate on "accuracy" — what does it mean in your terms?

I think most people can be taught to be successful - the question is rather successful in what ?

For example difficult to teach an impatient person having limited self discipline to daytrade discretionary - but more likely to tech the person to develop strategies for automated trading. We are all good at something.

There are also those who "fear the success" - often the fear of failure is greater than the desire for success, a very common problem. If you keep developing and developing without getting to an "exit" and start trading your strategies live you are most likely one of those who fear the success.

Most people prefer stability to success. - I know this seems odd, but success means taking risks, putting yourself out there, this also puts one at risk of failure. Since we are loss averse natutrally, we fear failure more than we desire success. Thus we takes steps to avoid failure and not seek success. - This leads to stability, or at least an impression of stability. I.e. Not failing is Success. -

BTW - Awesome discussion - thanks

Success is relative. Working at McDonalds and taking care of your kids or your sick mom could be success. However being a MD when your family wanted you to do law and join daddy's firm could be a complete failure.

To each there own.

The assumption that there is a system you can teach that survives most market conditions is the problem. Once a system is coded and tested, it generally shows the lack positive expectancy. If it doesn't, extend the out of sample period until it does :) I've built and tested hundreds with a full time development staff. Very few systems survive and none with any longevity. The few successful traders I've encountered, demonstrate intuitive reflexes that allow them to diverge from their systems using external subjective information when necessary. That is why there are thousands of hedge funds and so few actually beat the index.

To Alex, Richard and Others,

Disagree. If it is possible to teach Robot to be successful why do you think most people are worse than Robot? I have the right for my statement due to the new CVT Robot tested with same universal algorithm for the past data as long as you wish (for 6 - 10 or more years) and non-stoppable, generates very impressive net profits. In 2 months CVTR will be submitted at the new release tube to your judgement. The member of this group, believe in more optimistic solution than it follows from the title of a current discussion

Where did I say that it was possible to teach robots anything, not saying of being "successful"?

Dear Alex,

I'm very sorry, so much bugs in robots, most of companies are trying to fix problems with robots.(great jobs opportunities for fixers)

It doesn't work properly! actually anyway.

So please put your money into it , I'll make some.

Of course alive people on live markets are a bit, phsycologicly, a bit difficult to manage. True! of course they are Human.

Sorry for them

But if the Trading system is good and not so complicated, which, in many cases, is.

They will make it!

Some thinks, they could do anything with the markets, and they are right,

Fair play to them and they can do it.

Regards

Olivier

Alex, thanks for your question. I relate accuracy to replication and sustainability. When you say a business has a 99% failure rate, it seems to me you should stop teaching that method. On the floor of exchanges, just doing market order sharing and optionable limit order hedging is as simple a business as washing cars. Here is a hint : a limit order to buy, is like a short put. But when I short an option, I get paid. IE: a limit buy order is an obligation to buy at the market once the limit is breached. A short put is an obligation to buy, a long put is an option to sell. So a market book is populated by short options, puts and calls. How do you make an honest living on these mechanics ? More to come, best regards, S. Hardy.

Olivier, and where does that "not so complicated" trading system come from? Are robots those who invent it?

Stephane, not sure what was the idea of your post, but feel free to keep us posted.

Alex, if you can teach Robot to be successful (I assumed it previously) why you do not like to teach the majority of people to be successful or help them to accomplish in developing an individual Robots? It seems to me that the amplitude part of FM price volatility would be much lower than now. Furthermore, then your future mission in the field looks to me like very optimistic zest. Pessimism is not our way of thinking.

Gregory, I have never said that I or anyone else could teach robots to be successful, so I'm afraid it's a meaningless discussion.

A trading robot is by definition an automated trading program. Now, if one can not teach a robot to trade successfully, this is the same as not being able to teach someone or a programmer how to design a successful automated trading program. The corollary to this is: no robot, no automation. No automation, no program. No program, no automated trading rules. No trading rules that can be automated successfully, no need for programming courses that only end up with 99% of the students failing. No need to inquire on such courses. No need to read anything anyone puts out in advertising their courses. They will all lead to this 99% failure rate. That is the same thing as saying all automated trading programs will fail, it's only a question of time. And this by the way makes all automated trading programs worthless. Making it a “caveat emptor” of humongous proportion.

That is what I read in this forum, time and time again. And I don't buy it.

"Why it's not possible to teach most people to be successful" because in order that someone is successful we need someone that is not successful. Regarding the Robot or algo, there are already pattern on the chart, created by themselves, that can be exploited .

I got notice of this discussion just today and thought I'd read through the comments because I had some free time. (Doesn't happen often enough) First, I'd like to mention that I taught technical chart reading for nearly 10 years all over the world and my students had an extremely high success rate at achieving that ability. I showed them how it could be applied in trading as a foundation and that was a complete mess for the reasons Alex stated. They didn't take what I taught them to build a foundation for themselves, they took it as a "one-size-fits-all to trading. People want a fast track and it doesn't exist. Those of us that learned how to trade did it with many years of hard work and many losses. New people do not want to pay their dues to this industry. I for one refuse to "give" away the path to this success because no one could afford what I would have to charge to know what I know today.

Second, I got a chuckle out of an individuals praise for another's opinion regarding the more consistent results from reactive algorithms over predictive ones. One of the points I made in my classes starting in the late 90's was that if one could find a way to create a reactive solution to trading, they were on the path to the holy grail. The poster told me that my search was foolhardy and stupid. Seems like time and access to information changes the opinions of the stubborn. Lastly, one of my former students is one of the top FOREX trading mentors in the world so I got at least got one right.

As Paolo mention, this is a zero sum game, and someone has to pay the winners - the smart outperforming the less smart. I dont feel pity for the traders who spend a few days or weeks losing 10K, being smart stop trading and try something else - but I do feel pity for the less smart "alchemist" who spend decades of their life getting no where not knowing when to stop or change what they do.

Alex : Sorry, not to clear: if you mentor people and get a 99% failure rate, their is room for improvement. So I pointed to a few of the many activities which earn a living for most practitioners, and you may point to those in your work.

Maybe it's room for improvement. Tell this story to any sergeant. Unfortunately we're not in the army and you can't just force people to get rid of their losers mindset. They deserve a neat attitude because all of them are aware of their human rights, yeah.

Also it's quite possible that you got me wrong: I never work with those with this losers mindset. Therefore my personal failure rate is close to zero. They simply are sieved out (or sieve out themselves) during even the initial interview.

@Alex - you just confirmed I made a good decision to make a living exclusively by trading. I think my success rate in making good traders is close to zero if you take any sort of longevity into consideration.

Scott, for some years I also lived only in (and also with, amid, in front of and among) my computers and thought I was going to do only this till the end of time. Then I got bored. Now from time to time I think it would be best to go back to just trading. But I know after a certain time I will get bored again. An infinite loop...

@Alex I'm presuming you trade for yourself after a period of working on the street? I can say that automation- a fast food world - helps to create the 3 types of personality coming into the markets.

To speak to your original post: there's a good approach used to alter and train new traders and their expectations. Further to discover why they're in such a hurry. Results have been good - but I will tell you, they all didn't end up as fast money futures traders (which was my conjecture many years ago).

Speaking to your comment above: it's very difficult for the mind to remain curious in the markets if other areas of the mind aren't engaged. Getting bored isn't the worst thing in the world, as long as you have interests in which to turn. Take some time away from the market (if you can afford to do so). I've found some good trading ideas EXACTLY when I'm not looking for them. Because when I return to my desk after a short break, everything looks new. tgif.

I know my problem...its the damn emotions...

I get angry and then I blow out my acc... I just like AG because its stress free...

The software I use is amazing and it has a very low DD (0.12%)

W/L is 56/5 in pips = 122/2.9 less then 3 pips loss

its new but its running now for 79 days

Are some of you also trading with AG or EA's?

Success is a personal experience and natural instinct. I can teach some one, how to be successfully trading in a very simple one 40 years tested way. But he will not believe me as our life is cluttered with books, media and brokers, who only earn by scaring ideas without trading knowledge. so, most investors will be confused among so many screaming other ways to try from? only a personal experience will be the answer to learning knowledge by burning your own fingers? I find making money in my ways is the sure and easier way through my online algorithmic trades selection software, with nearly 90% profitable trades?

Usual trend following are hit and trial methods with only hopes to become winning trades but my software has only the online algorithmic tested multi billion $ traded experience with risk managed technique?

Oh ! I seriously thought the title read "Why it's not IMPOSSIBLE to teach most people to be successful How's that for attitude : )

Isn't it a implementation of Steve Jobs directive : "have the courage to follow your heart and intuition"? :))

Well, and what if all those willing only to get hold of a holy grail follow their heart and intuition?

Just kidding. It's obvious that this directive could lead you to a very unpleasant place. BTW, Cal Newport claims that SJ didn't live according to this principle.

Loud phrases mostly fit Linkedin "motivating" post titles. I can't imagine any reasonable use of them.

It's impossible because trading(speculation) is generally zero-sum game.

No, it's a negative sum game. However how does it relate to the ability to systematically win it?

Teaching someone to be successful is very different from teaching someone how to be successful....not to split hairs. Its like the difference between asking someone "what does that machine do," and "how does that machine do what it does?" Success, like the end result of other culminated events, is the byproduct, not the product.

It's possible to win systematically for 1% or 10%, but there will by always 90% that should loose, just from zero-sum nature of markets.

heart and intuition have nothing to do with trading... buy low and sell high :)

on related note, markets are far from zero-sum

The only zero in the zero sum game is, perhaps, the first guy in or the last guy out..

Because teached is not self learning

@Rizal Rizal Dwi Satria dead on point. Learning - having knowledge fed to a person; and their ability to use what they learned in a real time situation can often lead to frustration.

Providing the new trader a checklist to use after the trading day. In the same way a football player may redux their games. The checklist approach lessens bias and allows for pure observation.

One of my first mentors said something which has stayed with me to this day "your profitable trades must effect you the same as your losing trades. Losing is a part of trading. Just as death and taxes are a given in life."

Alex Krishtop I've given thought to this thread since reading it. I wondered if you were able to observe those traders you educated over a long period time thereafter. Were they given tools to continue to learn - almost like a machine? I'd love to see your study, if you have any stats you feel like sharing.

You can only teach someone the theory side of the game like Techincal Analysis, Fundamental Analysis, Risk & Money Mgmt. But the most important quality to succeed in this profession is the soft skills or Mind Management. "WHO YOU ARE IS HOW YOU TRADE" should be strongly followed and one should not try and copy other traders. One should develop a trading style based on their personality type.

90% of the participants are not making money - most of them cannot be reached anyway, including quant and algo developers using a decade getting nowhere.

This is how it is, these people will not listen, cannot be reached - they do not do their research, they do not even plan and realize whether they should trade discretionary or automated.

For each trade there is both a winner and a loser always. Thanks, David

The motivation behind many is that they have an underlying belief that they are Lucky and always Right. They need to view Richie Etwaru to understand what it takes to be Lucky/Right at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncZoNORFDGs

And in my opinion, the cause of 99% of failures is human greed.