I suppose you could argue that a small percentage of traders will do OK just by random chance.
Very astute logic.
But the author of this thread postulated that is is [U]impossible[/U] for ANYONE to make money consistently using technical or fundamental analysis.
Even one by sheer randomness would prove that statement incorrect:D
very true
I notice he hasnt taken up your offer either
Took me a bit to find it, but you sure did!
And it would be fine with me if the OP didnāt take us up on the offer.
Iād rather play for keeps;)
This should be rephrased so as to reflect closer to realityā¦
[B]Great builders[/B] build beautiful homes 100% of the time, [B]talented artist[/B] paint wonderful pictures 100% of the time and [B]skilled traders[/B] generate profits 2% of the time.
LOL! ummmm. No.
Try again.
If skilled traders generated profits 2% of the time, they must be losing the other 98%?
How is that āskilledā?
Just sayināā¦
Correctā¦did you not know 98% lose their money in the forex market ??
They would be skilled losers I would say.
ā¦along your line of thinking then:
did you know that most of the kids has some sort of art class, where they draw and paint? breaing news: 99.9% wont be great paintersā¦
so what?! 
when skilled traders mentioned that refers for the small group who actually is skilled, and such makes money.
In the spirit of this thread, show me definitively where you got those statistics.
And for your latest comment, 98% of the traders losing is different than traders having 2% gainsā¦
Split all the hairs you want.
We all know what we are talking about unless you are saying you donāt.
There has to be a study that shows it. Only studies count.
Makes no difference. I know what I know and 98% lose their money, with a study or not, that is a reality where I am concerned.
If you live in a rose tinted world where 98% make money from forexā¦that is your reality.
We all have different realitiesā¦in my world, people lose money in forex. Lots of it.
If you make money consistently with my robust parameters. The key word here is robust. Not only that, even a robust backtesting result over a long amount of time will go a long way by way of evidence, although forward testing is obviously more important.
Then yes.
I rklee, declare that I WILL BELIEVE (and give all credit due to you)
I will also retract my position and even change sides. because now there is proof.
I will create this demo account.
p.s. the other problem is reproducibility. A system may have an E ratio, but its edge may fade over time.
1 Like
Well said againā¦and right to the core of things
Looks like Saxo beats the āstreetā and backtesting.
Iād say thatās proof.
But of course there have been several examples posted so far, and they have been largely ignored.
Sort of like the people that still believe crop circles are formed by aliens, even though there have been confessions, and proof they are pranks.
Interesting that Saxo chooses to trade their model without stops.
That makes you a looser then and thatās a good thing because without loosers the rest of us couldnāt be winners. And by the way in case you missed it brokers have to report their statistics now. itās more like 80% / 20% except for Oanda, they are the exception to the rule.
Wait! You mean theyāre not?? :eek:
the Q3 2010 US retail forex brokers account profitabilityā¦ 
US Forex brokers account profitability comparison | Forex Magnates
PS stats are just for 2010 Q3ā¦ sorry, no robust backtestingā¦
Not on my world.
I could be swayed if one could provide a robust study proving alien forces are the source.
Of course a case of Yuengling might help persuade me:p