This correction-type thingy...

Damage

Gadfium wrote: »

I don't see a reluctance on anyone's part, to be fair. ANY dataset will have outliers such as these. There are millions of painters, but very few van Goghs or Dalis. There are millions of guitar players, but very few in the league of Clapton or Hendrix. In fact, if there wasn't outliers then your data would be suspect.

The point is that it is impossible for the vast, vast majority of people (either amateurs or professionals) to replicate their achievements. And unlike the van Goghs, Claptons and Hendrixes of the world, it is possible that a large part of their success was down to luck and statistical chance.

I certainly get a strong impression that some people are reluctant to acknowledge the existence of these traders who can perform to such levels beyond which can be explained by luck or chance.

I know it's impossible for the vast majority of people to replicate their achievements, and I have acknowledged that fact at least a few times. I wouldn't deny that it's possible for some people's success to be down to luck and statistical chance, but I am not referring to those people. I'm referring to the people whose performance is consistent to a level beyond such a point as to be able to explain it by luck or chance.

Is it the case that you or any other person not in agreement with me deny absolutely the existence of traders who can perform beyond the level that can be explained by luck or chance? If not, then those people are precisely the ones I am referring to, and we're in agreement. If so, then all I can do is direct you to the same publications that I'm referring to, and I would be geniunely interested in the results of your evaluation.

colsten

Damage wrote: »

Michael Marcus
Bruce Kovner
Richard Dennis
Paul Tudor Jones
Gary Bielfeldt
......
......
......

How would I go about investing with / through one or more of them?

Gadfium

Damage wrote: »

Is it the case that you or any other person not in agreement with me deny absolutely the existence of traders who can perform beyond the level that can be explained by luck or chance? If not, then those people are precisely the ones I am referring to, and we're in agreement. If so, then all I can do is direct you to the same publications that I'm referring to, and I would be geniunely interested in the results of your evaluation.

Not sure what would be gained, to be honest. I'm not denying that there are a few rare individuals that seem to consistently beat the market (cough, Anthony Bolton?), but I am not ideologically wedded to it.
I do know that for the vast majority of people, in the vast majority of cases, a buy and hold strategy seems the best. You are presenting it as if these approaches are at the opposite end of a spectrum and in doing so are creating a bit of a false dilemma. In reality, they aren't at opposite ends of a spectrum....the buy and hold covers the majority of the spectrum.

2010

Panic stations.
The dow dropped over 1000 points on opening, now it`s only down 188 points.
Roller coaster or what.

masonic

Damage wrote: »

I'm not missing anything. You edited out one paragraph from my post that was crucial to the point being made.

I quoted the first two paragraphs of your post at which I my response was directed in full, without any edits. Those paragraphs discussed the difference in graphical representations of a buy and hold vs. day trade on a share price chart and your thesis was that they are essentially the same.

My views on day trading, and those people who get sucked in to believing they will be able to do it successfully, are pretty apparent from other threads. I thought I'd spare you from my opinion of your third paragraph. I also thought I felt the barb of a fishing hook as I chewed that paragraph over, so I spat out the bait.

Gadfium

2010 wrote: »

Panic stations.

Have you heard of Chicken Little?

talexuser

Damage wrote: »

You might need to read my posts again.

No thanks, once is quite enough :rotfl:

2010

Gadfium wrote: »

Have you heard of Chicken Little?

Seen all this in 2008.
Luckily don`t have that many shares these days to worry about.
Cash is always king.

Gadfium

2010 wrote: »

Seen all this in 2008.
Luckily don`t have that many shares these days to worry about.
Cash is always king.

We're all dooooomed.....

guymo

InvestInPoker wrote: »

I am, however, thoroughly disappointed that "Ryan Futuristics" is not around to dispense some gems of advice on the current situation.

Yeah, me too, that was always entertaining. His posts were probably dangerous to newcomers because of their convincing authoritative tone, but it certainly did make for some fun discussions.