3 ms·
The reason I find it dubious is because $100k is not very much. You need to make very large trades--risking thousands of dollars at a time--or else you'll be ea
by cynicalkane 17y ago
The reason I find it dubious is because $100k is not very much. You need to make very large trades--risking thousands of dollars at a time--or else you'll be eaten by fees and commissions.
I don't know anything about day trading, but I used to play poker (profitably), and know sports betters. $100k is simply not enough to be risking thousands of dollars on single bets, unless the bets have an enormous edge--an edge that is economically impossible in the algo-dominated, limited-information world of day trading. You will go bust.
I could produce math for you, but I'm lazy. But I've seen so many poker players go bust taking risks like this, and poker is a game where it's unbelievable how many morons are willing to throw money at you. Not like day trading.
- lrm242 17y agoThere are a lot of subtleties with trading. To make money you need positive expectancy and you need 'inventory', or tradeable markets. They don't have to make large trades to make money. You have to consider transaction costs, rebates, avg win size, avg lose size, holding period, and a number of other criteria before you can judge these traders. I don't claim they won't go bust, but I do take issue that simply because they make out-sized returns they are labeled charlatans.