3 ms·

Stock brokers are a bad example, because that is essentially gambling. Also playing around with some API will make me better in using that API. What are some

by Tichy 14y ago

Stock brokers are a bad example, because that is essentially gambling. Also playing around with some API will make me better in using that API. What are some meaningful metrics for becoming a better developer? Personally, I'd like to launch more.

tiger10guy 14y ago
Ditto to the gambler comment. Read Nate Silver's book on predictions for more. Working as a stock broker shouldn't be compared to software development without some explanation of why the link is valid, which it isn't in this case.
n3rdy 14y ago
Came in to post this point as well. Even if you don't consider it gambling, you judge a stock brokers talent based on their average return of investment for their portfolios. Unless that average is increasing every year, its hard to say they are improving their talent. Not many brokers and traders work on improving their ROI, they focus on compounding the capital they have at targets like 1% to 3%. The law of diminishing returns also plays a big role in a stock brokers career, there are swing traders who may make only a few transactions a year, then there are day traders who make hundreds of trades a day. There isn't a strong correlation of hours trading to profits. Comparing this at all to programming is like comparing apples to kittens.
jcbrand 14y ago
Nassim Taleb explains this very well in one of his books (not sure which, Fooled by Randomness or Black Swan). Assume you have 8 traders and their chance of making a win/loss in a given year is 50% (i.e completely random). On average, after 1 year, you'll have 4 traders who made money. After 2 years, you'll have 2 and after 3 years you'll have 1. That one trader can now proclaim loudly that he's outperformed the marked for 3 years in a row. Even though his own influence in this was zero, and he reached it through pure luck. Luck plays a large role in everyone's life, but for traders much more so, and comparatively for programmers much less.
FailMore 14y ago
I don't think it's as bad as you think. While there is luck involved with the stock market, those trading in it are not machines trading randomly (which would make it truly gambling) - they are thinking humans trying to make the best decisions they can. It's very easy to spent years playing in the market - but not focusing on improving yourself as a player. The same is true for poker (which is my background). I'm pretty new to code, but I would think that it's possible to reach that level after a few years. Building things that are easy for you and not pushing to deepen your knowledge. You get me bro?

by Tichy 14y ago

tiger10guy 14y ago

Ditto to the gambler comment. Read Nate Silver's book on predictions for more. Working as a stock broker shouldn't be compared to software development without some explanation of why the link is valid, which it isn't in this case.

n3rdy 14y ago

Came in to post this point as well. Even if you don't consider it gambling, you judge a stock brokers talent based on their average return of investment for their portfolios. Unless that average is increasing every year, its hard to say they are improving their talent. Not many brokers and traders work on improving their ROI, they focus on compounding the capital they have at targets like 1% to 3%. The law of diminishing returns also plays a big role in a stock brokers career, there are swing traders who may make only a few transactions a year, then there are day traders who make hundreds of trades a day. There isn't a strong correlation of hours trading to profits. Comparing this at all to programming is like comparing apples to kittens.

jcbrand 14y ago

Nassim Taleb explains this very well in one of his books (not sure which, Fooled by Randomness or Black Swan). Assume you have 8 traders and their chance of making a win/loss in a given year is 50% (i.e completely random). On average, after 1 year, you'll have 4 traders who made money. After 2 years, you'll have 2 and after 3 years you'll have 1. That one trader can now proclaim loudly that he's outperformed the marked for 3 years in a row. Even though his own influence in this was zero, and he reached it through pure luck. Luck plays a large role in everyone's life, but for traders much more so, and comparatively for programmers much less.

FailMore 14y ago

I don't think it's as bad as you think. While there is luck involved with the stock market, those trading in it are not machines trading randomly (which would make it truly gambling) - they are thinking humans trying to make the best decisions they can. It's very easy to spent years playing in the market - but not focusing on improving yourself as a player. The same is true for poker (which is my background). I'm pretty new to code, but I would think that it's possible to reach that level after a few years. Building things that are easy for you and not pushing to deepen your knowledge. You get me bro?