3 ms·
This is akin to saying "it is impossible to gamble at the casino for a living", which for the overwhelming majority of people is true. Having said that, it's no
by iliketosleep 7y ago
This is akin to saying "it is impossible to gamble at the casino for a living", which for the overwhelming majority of people is true. Having said that, it's not impossible. People have beaten casinos before, and they have beaten markets, by finding an edge over the house (or market) - but it's never the typical Joe type. In day-trading, the typical Joe uses so-called "technical analysis", the same stuff you'll find in books and taught by course providers, which offers absolutely no edge over the market. It's simply cashing in on hope.
- duxup 7y agoI think the "for a living" is really about beating it longer term and the income comes in a sustainable fashion. Even someone beating a casino I would think would get some big payouts to live on long term... but that casnio is gonna notice and shut down that "living" or just ban you. In that sense you're not doing it "for a living" as much as hoping to make enough money in a short span to maybe last longer term. Now maybe they find new ways to beat the casino but to do it sustainability is questionable. So beating the casino seems different than "for a living" IMO.
- iliketosleep 7y agoLarge, irregular payouts can also constitute a living. In extreme cases, it might even be just one payout.
- duxup 7y agoI think the study shows that even that didn't happen for anyone in the market.