War Room Lounge v54: I was there for Kimura-Gracie, solid crowd

[Prokofievian]

I've always thought day trading was a rich mans game. Like you said, it's too easy to lose it all. And going from 10K to 15K isn't worth the risk. Young people and those starting off should invest long term for growth in my opinion. It's the rich guys who can throw down 100k+on a stock, wait an hour, profit another 20k off it rising and keep snowballing from there.

I think it's the other way around. When you're right, you get your volume the old fashioned way: buying and selling a lot of shares at a time. If you can buy a hundred thousand dividend paying shares you can just hold them and live off that income while your wealth increases. If, on the other hand, you're saving up to buy another share of Amazon, it's not going anywhere.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You may be right, but I tend to assume that interest and effort go a long way. I'd be surprised if he didn't pick up something in the apparent hundreds or thousands of hours he's spent thinking about the topic.

I promise you he has not picked up anything of use.

What he's doing is on the level of reading tea leaves. You can study it and learn how to talk about reading tea leaves in a way that sounds like you know what you're talking about to other tea-leaf readers and can suggest to outsiders that you're speaking real jargon, but it's not actually making you any better at predicting the future.

 

[Sycho Sid]

I promise you he has not picked up anything of use.

What he's doing is on the level of reading tea leaves. You can study it and learn how to talk about reading tea leaves in a way that sounds like you know what you're talking about to other tea-leaf readers and can suggest to outsiders that you're speaking real jargon, but it's not actually making you any better at predicting the future.

It is that, and the fact that every thread title he makes is some hyperbolic bullshit, usually being about some company he does not like for one reason or another losing like a third of a percent

 

[Fawlty]

It's my edge-lord opinion that day trading is basically the way to build a big roll when you're still young, even though there's about a 90% chance or better that you'll lose everything. Average people just don't have enough capital for a respectable return to make that much of a difference. Let's say you have 10 grand and you really nail a call on a stock and you make a 50% return...is your life any different now? No. If you do that a few thousand times it would be, though. You have to get the volume somehow.

I had some questions that JVS and others helped me out with, and did some reading. It sounds a lot worse than just going to the casino and shooting craps. You get to both the "long run" and the short-term variance upswings way faster playing craps than you do with stock trading, at least. But I think it's not that 90% go broke, rather that something close to 90% lose money year-over-year. That's actually quite surprising since the stock market is essentially rigged heavily in the investor's favor, so the transaction fees must be sneakily huge.

Reminds me of sports bettors. People swear they can beat the book, but top pros who sniff out arb very well and network with other experts can only expect around a 2% edge in a very good year. Variance again throws this all over the place, but fucking hell people should just learn to play Texas Hold 'Em.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Hmmmm
Lemme see what I can dig up
Think a lot of that stuff ended up getting deleted for one reason or another, though

Yo. Don't. My post earlier in the thread got deleted and I was told to be careful with pedi accusations

Was jokey enough to not get me some yellows, but I'm done on the topic now as this line is thin

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I promise you he has not picked up anything of use.

What he's doing is on the level of reading tea leaves. You can study it and learn how to talk about reading tea leaves in a way that sounds like you know what you're talking about to other tea-leaf readers and can suggest to outsiders that you're speaking real jargon, but it's not actually making you any better at predicting the future.

Incidentally that's not unlike his previous approaches to philosophy and psychology. I've sure you've all seen the bolded Nietzsche quotes with no sign of context or understanding.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Incidentally that's not unlike his previous approaches to philosophy and psychology. I've sure you've all seen the bolded Nietzsche quotes with no sign of context or understanding.

Not going to lie I rather enjoyed his thread on the Myers-Briggs personality types in Mayberry

 

[Higus]

Yo. Don't. My post earlier in the thread got deleted and I was told to be careful with pedi accusations

Was jokey enough to not get me some yellows, but I'm done on the topic now as this line is thin

Sometimes you don't even get a warning
<-------

 

[Prokofievian]

I had some questions that JVS and others helped me out with, and did some reading. It sounds a lot worse than just going to the casino and shooting craps. You get to both the "long run" and the short-term variance upswings way faster playing craps than you do with stock trading, at least. But I think it's not that 90% go broke, rather that something close to 90% lose money year-over-year. That's actually quite surprising since the stock market is essentially rigged heavily in the investor's favor, so the transaction fees must be sneakily huge.

Reminds me of sports bettors. People swear they can beat the book, but top pros who sniff out arb very well and network with other experts can only expect around a 2% edge in a very good year. Variance again throws this all over the place, but fucking hell people should just learn to play Texas Hold 'Em.

Yeah. Specifically, this guy's problem that I saw that made him lose his roll was that he was trading anything that looked even vaguely like a pattern. I was watching another guy who actually makes ridiculous amounts of money on his live trading videos, and the difference was stark: he played maybe 1 or 2 patterns per day. It's a lot like hold 'em. Bad players play every pot thinking they're the next gus hansen. It's not true.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Not going to lie I rather enjoyed his thread on the Myers-Briggs personality types in Mayberry

No one said tea leaves couldn't be entertaining lol

 

[Trotsky]

It's my edge-lord opinion that day trading is basically the way to build a big roll when you're still young, even though there's about a 90% chance or better that you'll lose everything. Average people just don't have enough capital for a respectable return to make that much of a difference. Let's say you have 10 grand and you really nail a call on a stock and you make a 50% return...is your life any different now? No. If you do that a few thousand times it would be, though. You have to get the volume somehow.

I promise you he has not picked up anything of use.

What he's doing is on the level of reading tea leaves. You can study it and learn how to talk about reading tea leaves in a way that sounds like you know what you're talking about to other tea-leaf readers and can suggest to outsiders that you're speaking real jargon, but it's not actually making you any better at predicting the future.

I had some questions that JVS and others helped me out with, and did some reading. It sounds a lot worse than just going to the casino and shooting craps. You get to both the "long run" and the short-term variance upswings way faster playing craps than you do with stock trading, at least. But I think it's not that 90% go broke, rather that something close to 90% lose money year-over-year. That's actually quite surprising since the stock market is essentially rigged heavily in the investor's favor, so the transaction fees must be sneakily huge.

Reminds me of sports bettors. People swear they can beat the book, but top pros who sniff out arb very well and network with other experts can only expect around a 2% edge in a very good year. Variance again throws this all over the place, but fucking hell people should just learn to play Texas Hold 'Em.

Call it intellectual hubris, but I am fairly certain that I could make good money trading stocks just based on social and political trends. My confidence was validated, in whatever minor way, by a simulated stock app (I had a roommate in law school that was in a work pool, took my suggestions, and won it).

 

[Limbo Pete]

Yo. Don't. My post earlier in the thread got deleted and I was told to be careful with pedi accusations

Was jokey enough to not get me some yellows, but I'm done on the topic now as this line is thin

Oh for sure. And all that stuff got deleted with the original conversation. It's still pretty funny to see him pretending some Vietnamese model is his ex GF though.

 

[JDragon]

A hymn in light of current events

 

[Prokofievian]

Call it intellectual hubris, but I am fairly certain that I could make good money trading stocks just based on social and political trends. My confidence was validated, in whatever minor way, by a simulated stock app (I had a roommate in law school that was in a work pool, took my suggestions, and won it).

Do it. Bet it all. Don't let your dreams be dreams. Mortgage a kidney.

 

[Fawlty]

Yeah. Specifically, this guy's problem that I saw that made him lose his roll was that he was trading anything that looked even vaguely like a pattern. I was watching another guy who actually makes ridiculous amounts of money on his live trading videos, and the difference was stark: he played maybe 1 or 2 patterns per day. It's a lot like hold 'em. Bad players play every pot thinking they're the next gus hansen. It's not true.

I was shocked when I learned that people were "playing patterns." That's just objectively bunk. It would be like (another poker analogy here) looking at my short-term results graph with all its peaks and valleys (the long view is remarkably smooth, way smoother than a stock market graph) and adjusting my play according to that short-term variance. It's a fantastic way to go broke.

 

[Trotsky]

Do it. Bet it all. Don't let your dreams be dreams. Mortgage a kidney.

Not my style, homie. My money goes to charity and student loans, not fancy cars and candy bars.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I have two Corporate Finance textbooks and a Capital Markets book and I still don't know what a textbook on personal investing that doesn't say Dummies on the cover is called or looks like.

I take that to mean it's too hard for me.

 

[Fawlty]

Call it intellectual hubris, but I am fairly certain that I could make good money trading stocks just based on social and political trends. My confidence was validated, in whatever minor way, by a simulated stock app (I had a roommate in law school that was in a work pool, took my suggestions, and won it).

The reason it's hubris is that you haven't accounted for the likelihood that it's all been tried. We're all susceptible to that sort of error though.

 

[Prokofievian]

I was shocked when I learned that people were "playing patterns." That's just objectively bunk. It would be like (another poker analogy here) looking at my short-term results graph with all its peaks and valleys (the long view is remarkably smooth, way smoother than a stock market graph) and adjusting my play according to that short-term variance. It's a fantastic way to go broke.

That's all day trading is. Looking at premarket volumes, floats, news, and trying to ride bull/bear flags. Long term is way safer and actually makes investment sense. But for us little guys it's basically saving for retirement.

We sound poor.

 

[Trotsky]

The reason it's hubris is that you haven't accounted for the likelihood that it's all been tried. We're all susceptible to that sort of error though.

I don't know this means. Can't you just observe stock prices for industries/companies by political cycle and, if price rises and falls at the points you designated, then you were right?

To be sure, I'm not talking about, like, investing in startups lol. ,