Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

emg

What Demographic is Most Likely to Lose in Trading?

Recommended Posts

What demographics is most likely to lose in trading?

 

 

#1 Women/Female

 

Women are the worst traders ever! However, there are 2 kinds of women: Dyke and barbie doll women. Dyke is most likely to become a successful trader than a barbie doll women. Dyke has balls to trade large quantities.

 

#2 Age 18-30 years old

 

In this group, they are proud to become an adult. They are proud not to live at home with their parent. They are not married or are in the process of getting marry and will do anything to have fun (bars, nightclub vegas, drugs, etc etc etc). They have limited income and look at trading as gambling. These people will most likely to start trading less than $5000. Can't blame them due to limited income.

 

#3 Blue Collar workers

 

In this group, most of them do not have college degree. These group falls in the lower middleclass and lower class. Blue collar define as:

 

A blue-collar worker is a member of the working class who typically performs manual labor and earns an hourly wage. Blue-collar workers are distinguished from those in the service sector

 

Majority of this group search for the holy grail system through google search.

 

#4 Age 65 years old and up

 

In this group, they are retired after 40 years of working and looking to have fun (enjoy life). Majority of this group are the victim of getting scam by the 3rd party educational vendors.

 

#5 Age 30-55 years old

 

In this group, most are in the process of changing career and look at trading as get rich quick after reading many books like soros, warren buffet, etc, etc. They dream of sending their kids to havard. They dream of owning a yacht. They dream of trading at home instead of working at an office. However, it is this group has a higher chance of becoming a successful traders vs others above. They are matured.

 

 

I am looking for a good answer. Bring them up!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow this has the potential to create some angry people!! :-)

 

my vote is #2 Age 18-30 years old for the exact reasons you described. they are gambling hoping to hit it big ...and will most likely end up losing. if they aren't 'trading', they are betting on sports, playing online poker, or spending time in casinos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GREAT(very very bad thought) thanks in name of all women i don't like how ,you describe and paint the women,not all women fortunally aren't so.Sorry but you aren't the holy bible that it's so and stop!

i'm very very angry. .

 

ahimsa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to post a response to this thread but I really don't even know where to begin...

 

How about...do you have any data or studies to back up such a claims, emg?...particularly the section on women? That was pretty low, to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it matters. As much as any member of a particular demographic wishes to believe that there is another group more likely to lose money than theirs, it really doesn't matter. There may be a slight skew at any given time but really there are plenty of trading losers in all walks of life. I actually disagree about women. If they were more inclined to try trading, actually many may do pretty well. Take a look at females in school. Always work hard, prepare well and have little ego. Of course this is general but I would say it's more prevalent in women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First the women had ever worked hard more of man because we further works had family childs and all concern the house family organization.but in trading i don't care that is a sexual or demographic factor,all know that the 90% of traders are looser.maybe.its hard fight whit who made the market. after come the istitutional world and banks and we know the rest 5%that win because applied to trading pshichological ,technical and fundamental path and respect for him/herself and other.without care to discriminate none to apart for gender,age or other.second the profitable trader are more humble and its very difficult that wrote in a forum ,i'm strong i'm very profitable,and i'm the unic bla bla bla.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahimsa,

 

I understand why it might upset you somewhat if someone were to insinuate that women are somehow inferior traders, but don't you think it might be an important idea to explore? On a purely prejudiced level, I think the question has little relevance, but from an intellectual standpoint it's a good question. The way women are naturally and the way women develop based on environmental interactions is clearly very different to men. There must be some useful studies out there on this that actually could help us all to better understand ourselves as traders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  MadMarketScientist said:
wow this has the potential to create some angry people!! :-)

 

my vote is #2 Age 18-30 years old for the exact reasons you described. they are gambling hoping to hit it big ...and will most likely end up losing. if they aren't 'trading', they are betting on sports, playing online poker, or spending time in casinos.

 

Add drinking, eating like a champ, and a bunch of loose women and you have paradise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the demographics of people who WILL fail according to a poll I took. The sample size was one. I interviewed myself. Attached is a the data file, including statistical analysis.

 

 

People who will fail at trading:

 

  1. People with minivans - It's been proven that people with minivans have to many things to do, and can't become totally obsessed with the study of trading.
  2. People who like watching court television shows - People who like watching Judge Judy have been studied, and it's been proven that their brains have atrophied.
  3. People with degrees in Political Science - People with degrees in Political Science have been proven to not be able to deal with real world situations, and can never face the real solution.
  4. Former World Wrestling Federation (WWF) champions - They smash their computer equipment.

 

 

People who are most likely to succeed at trading:

 

  1. Nudest - They have no fear of things that are immaterial to trading.
  2. Circus Performers - They know how to deal with risk
  3. Septic System Cleaners and Garbage Disposal Collectors - They are persistent in the face of difficulty
  4. Illusionists - They know the difference between a fake price move and the real thing

 

This is original material. I just thought it up. Comedians came in fifth for people most likely to succeed at trading.

 

Tradewinds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

think about this:

 

if you are a woman, the odds are higher a woman will fall in the 90% catagory.

If you are 21 years old, the odds are higher he/she will fall int eh 90% catagory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  emg said:
think about this:

 

if you are a woman, the odds are higher a woman will fall in the 90% catagory.

If you are 21 years old, the odds are higher he/she will fall int eh 90% catagory.

 

Personally, when I was in my teens and early 20's I made a hell of a lot more trading since it did not matter if I lost everything. Now it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting article:

 

Sorry, but women can’t trade

 

8 March 2011

 

 

As it’s International Women’s Day and everyone’s bemoaning the fact that women don’t have a better deal in life, I’d like to make a brief point: I have tried to employ women as traders; it doesn’t work.

 

Much as it pains me to say so, the reality seems to be that women can’t trade prop. Show me a woman who’s a competent prop trader. I’ll show you a man in disguise.

 

I have tried very hard to disprove this theory.

 

I have hired plenty of women. None of them have ever stuck at it. They all started off in a very conscientious and analytical manner and were very keen, but after two or three months it was all over.

 

Why?

 

I blame two things: emotion and boredom.

 

When a woman trades, it doesn’t take long before she becomes emotionally involved in what she’s doing. She loses the discipline that’s needed to make money consistently. She fails to maximise profits and fails to minimise losses.

 

She also becomes bored. Staring at a screen all day doesn’t seem to offer the mental stimulation that a woman requires. Women need interactivity. In my experience, they’re better at relationship-based trading. When it’s just them and the screen, it doesn’t work.

 

I wish this wasn’t the case. I wish I didn’t have to be the one to point it out. But someone needs to. This isn't a qualitative judgement. In this industry, performance is measured very simply in terms of P&L. I have given a lot of female traders a chance. None of them have taken it.

 

The author is an anonymous (male) prop trader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  emg said:
Here is an interesting article:

 

Sorry, but women can’t trade

 

8 March 2011

 

 

As it’s International Women’s Day and everyone’s bemoaning the fact that women don’t have a better deal in life, I’d like to make a brief point: I have tried to employ women as traders; it doesn’t work.

 

Much as it pains me to say so, the reality seems to be that women can’t trade prop. Show me a woman who’s a competent prop trader. I’ll show you a man in disguise.

 

I have tried very hard to disprove this theory.

 

I have hired plenty of women. None of them have ever stuck at it. They all started off in a very conscientious and analytical manner and were very keen, but after two or three months it was all over.

 

Why?

 

I blame two things: emotion and boredom.

 

When a woman trades, it doesn’t take long before she becomes emotionally involved in what she’s doing. She loses the discipline that’s needed to make money consistently. She fails to maximise profits and fails to minimise losses.

 

She also becomes bored. Staring at a screen all day doesn’t seem to offer the mental stimulation that a woman requires. Women need interactivity. In my experience, they’re better at relationship-based trading. When it’s just them and the screen, it doesn’t work.

 

I wish this wasn’t the case. I wish I didn’t have to be the one to point it out. But someone needs to. This isn't a qualitative judgement. In this industry, performance is measured very simply in terms of P&L. I have given a lot of female traders a chance. None of them have taken it.

 

The author is an anonymous (male) prop trader.

 

That is so silly. It's a mile from proving anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  TheNegotiator said:
Ahimsa,

 

I understand why it might upset you somewhat if someone were to insinuate that women are somehow inferior traders, but don't you think it might be an important idea to explore? On a purely prejudiced level, I think the question has little relevance, but from an intellectual standpoint it's a good question. The way women are naturally and the way women develop based on environmental interactions is clearly very different to men. There must be some useful studies out there on this that actually could help us all to better understand ourselves as traders.

 

 

yes could be an important idea to explored ... but only because are 5 on 1000 women try to become a trader or simply studied this topic or inly for passion for financial markets.for me its the same comparison..to the women that try to run in F1 .they ..are a number very very less than a men ..it's only a minority factor..and isn't neither a speech of excellent matematic mind because there are many woman with a excellent matematic mind.I 'm only very angry with who generalize(and if you go away with the posts you can saw that who opened this trhead again continued to generalize the debate.very,very banal )why said woman are bored in trading......depends in that way they trade.if i work with a more big rest,maybe is different...but if i made scalping ...i'm not bored.but that i must read that woman can't trade is ridicolus.i trade for myself i used my money(but is more the time that i observe and study the market) and i never hear that there are so many man that give a chance for trade for other people.another banal thing is the woman with balls trade with more qualtity.......i will say ....the woman and the man if had a big quantity of money to invest in financial market maybe trade with more quantity because the pain if they lose is less.for the simple way that who had less money if lose all the day after don't can trade the magnate the day after can begining a new day ...for trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  emg said:
I have hired plenty of women. None of them have ever stuck at it.

 

If 90% of all traders fail, you would have needed to have hired at least 10 women to get one that could make money. If the failure rate is 95%, you would have needed to hire 20 women to assure that one succeeded. 20 * 0.5 = 1

 

Of course, you may have noticed a success rate in men, that you didn't see in women, regardless of what the statistics are. I don't know.

 

I'm not trying to make a case either way. But there is a serious problem with making absolute statements without some kind of information that is then used for some kind of a rational proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Tradewinds said:
These are the demographics of people who WILL fail according to a poll I took. The sample size was one. I interviewed myself. Attached is a the data file, including statistical analysis.

 

 

People who will fail at trading:

 

  1. People with minivans - It's been proven that people with minivans have to many things to do, and can't become totally obsessed with the study of trading.
  2. People who like watching court television shows - People who like watching Judge Judy have been studied, and it's been proven that their brains have atrophied.
  3. People with degrees in Political Science - People with degrees in Political Science have been proven to not be able to deal with real world situations, and can never face the real solution.
  4. Former World Wrestling Federation (WWF) champions - They smash their computer equipment.

 

 

People who are most likely to succeed at trading:

 

  1. Nudest - They have no fear of things that are immaterial to trading.
  2. Circus Performers - They know how to deal with risk
  3. Septic System Cleaners and Garbage Disposal Collectors - They are persistent in the face of difficulty
  4. Illusionists - They know the difference between a fake price move and the real thing

 

This is original material. I just thought it up. Comedians came in fifth for people most likely to succeed at trading.

 

Tradewinds

 

nice...i like more the second list ...especially..the 1 and the 4...very nice interwiew,,,:).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  emg said:
What demographics is most likely to lose in trading?

 

 

#1 Women/Female

 

Women are the worst traders ever! However, there are 2 kinds of women: Dyke and barbie doll women. Dyke is most likely to become a successful trader than a barbie doll women. Dyke has balls to trade large quantities.

 

#2 Age 18-30 years old

 

In this group, they are proud to become an adult. They are proud not to live at home with their parent. They are not married or are in the process of getting marry and will do anything to have fun (bars, nightclub vegas, drugs, etc etc etc). They have limited income and look at trading as gambling. These people will most likely to start trading less than $5000. Can't blame them due to limited income.

 

#3 Blue Collar workers

 

In this group, most of them do not have college degree. These group falls in the lower middleclass and lower class. Blue collar define as:

 

A blue-collar worker is a member of the working class who typically performs manual labor and earns an hourly wage. Blue-collar workers are distinguished from those in the service sector

 

Majority of this group search for the holy grail system through google search.

 

#4 Age 65 years old and up

 

In this group, they are retired after 40 years of working and looking to have fun (enjoy life). Majority of this group are the victim of getting scam by the 3rd party educational vendors.

 

#5 Age 30-55 years old

 

In this group, most are in the process of changing career and look at trading as get rich quick after reading many books like soros, warren buffet, etc, etc. They dream of sending their kids to havard. They dream of owning a yacht. They dream of trading at home instead of working at an office. However, it is this group has a higher chance of becoming a successful traders vs others above. They are matured.

 

 

I am looking for a good answer. Bring them up!!

 

1 - they have less emotional attachment apparently, and make good traders in general though few are attracted to a male dominated industry

 

2 - nothing to lose and so little fear. if they screw up, they just find another career. They have more objectivity but their ego can destroy them if theyre not cut out for it.

 

3 - these guys tend to have more street smart. more instinct. they dont have the education that blinds college kids into believing theory, laws, natural order, the world owes them a living attitude that just doesnt exist in the market.

 

4- may get scammed, but also may have the money/nest egg for it to be a hobby and not care, thus benefiting from #2. Depends if they have a good nest egg or not

 

5- sound desperate to change their lives and unhappy with the 9-5 job/rat race. Too eager to win rather than understand to change their lot in life. I dont think they can win if desperate - they are more likely to gamble in the hope of the dream. Keep throwing money into accounts and losing it. Probably the biggest demographic of losers.

 

The fact is, if you trade for the money/American dream, the odds are slim. Those who win dont worry about the money. Its only if you can look at the market without a care that you can see what the market is doing and put a position on and manage it with a clear head.

 

Thats why the boards are full of paper trader millionaires, but as soon as it comes to real money, it all falls apart.

 

Be happy with what you have in life now. Appreciate it. You have a lot more than 2/3 of the

world who live in poverty. Youre lucky. Markets dont matter. Be happy with what you have, truly happy, then you can move forward.

 

Read the Bible. Understand Gods Word.

 

The Dude abides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EMG - post 12 - Show me a woman who’s a competent prop trader. I’ll show you a man in disguise.

 

I have worked with female traders who are good, and this is an apt description. Its not that women cannot trade, its just that often it seems that they adopt male characteristics to do so. Otherwise EMG, have you recently become divorced or broken up with the girlfriend? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.