There is survivorship bias, but the coin flipping analogy is a tired trope (and it implies something utterly different). There aren't a million traders, and the

There is survivorship bias, but the coin flipping analogy is a tired trope (and it implies something utterly different). There aren't a million traders, and there are more than 20 consistently beating the market. Significantly more. Do the actual math with some attempt at empirical numbers and your argument might make sense. Until people start doing that, repeating this line about coin flips and the law of large numbers doesn't add anything to the discussion. First of all, you haven't qualified who you're including in the set of "traders" and who you're including in the set of "winners." Is everyone who signs up for ETrade included? That's like major league baseball players being judged the same as way as high school baseball players. More importantly, have you done the cursory research to account for funds that consistently beat the market? How do you account for the firms that beat the market over periods that span decades? Just ridiculously lucky? What counts as a coin flip? A single trade? A trading day? Are the coins summed per trader or per fund? How are we quantifying this assessment? It's like every time someone brings up the coin flipping analogy they use these outrageous numbers without any attempt at citing a grounded source in reality. As I say every single time in threads like this: yes, it's incredibly difficult to purposefully and consistently beat the market, but that's worlds away from impossible. There is information asymmetry in the market, relatively few people/firms are capable of identifying alpha based on that, and fewer still are capable of capitalizing on it. But they exist! Stubbornly repeating the coin analogy is like insisting on proof that basketball players have inherent skill instead of luck, because most people can't make it to the NBA. We have clear examples of firms beating the market consistently for decades at a time, net of fees. I am personally familiar with people whose strategies profitably trade on small pockets of predictable events in timeseries tick data. Their strategies are smaller (~high 6 - low 7 digit accounts using personal capital), but they consistently earn 27-30% each year by trading strategies that are too capacity-constrained for larger firms (and usually they do this after being in the industry for some time). I make this point not to pick on you (it's not personal!), it's just that I see this repeated in every thread related to trading on HN. Referring to trading as coin flipping when your familiarity mostly stems from news reports flies in the face of people who are capable of developing profitable trading algorithms and who have seen it. It's as if someone told you that it's impossible to develop well-engineered software. It's exhausting. There's this weird leap from (correctly) concluding that most people in the industry can't beat the market, to damning the entire concept. If you want to say there is a lot of survivorship bias in the industry, sure, I'll agree with that. But what's the point of using Fama's coin flipping analogy if there's no rigor behind it? It precludes so much nuance in fund performance. Many funds can't beat the market at all. Many do beat the market, but they purposely decide to eat away all those gains with fees when they could run a far leaner ship. And the elite do consistently beat the market, until they eventually get large enough to diversify into multiple funds (accepting that most will be mediocre) or they return investor money because they don't need it and their strategies are capacity constrained.