Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

Do you still insist this guy is "investing"?? He admitted it it over and over again he is speculating. Speculative trading at the stock markets is gambling with a mere 50-50 chance to gain or lose. Google it.

Which guy? Milti?

Yes Milti is investing. He is trading to be more precise. Short term trading.

Big Fund Managers go for long term growth. The 2 styles are completely different.

Trading is more risky. But the returns are much higher too. You saw Milti make a few hundred Euros in just a few days.

I call it investing for a few reasons.

Milti picked a pretty good and rock solid stock in Tom Tom. I believed this was an excellent pick on his behalf.

he also picked Ripple. I do not know what Ripple do and I haven't looked into it and therefore do not know if they are good. But Milti told us he did his research and looked into it. Therefore, he is claiming to have made an informed decision. Therefore, it is short term trading and investing.

Speculators are those guys who go for the start ups and the penny dreadfuls. And I wouldn't call that gambling either because these guys usually win big.

This isn't like going to the casino and betting on red and black.

High end managed funds are a different kettle of fish altogether. They go for the long term returns.

But if you what to be specific as per the definition. A property investor who buys a property is also speculating. But he is not gambling. He is trying to achieve a profit and a return on that property over time. It could also go the other way, but that too is not gambling.

When your chances are 50-50 or less it's gambling by definition.
Statistics prove that his chances are actually lower than 50-50, as you may learn from the links below.
What he does is relying on questionable media information often spread on purpose to catch fish. That’s not a calculated risk. That’s basically nothing. The fact that he presumably made some money so far (which I personally doubt) can only be attributed to pure luck.
Do you wanna bet he is going to lose everything he gained to far from TomTom on Ripple which he plans to keep upto end of December?

Regardless, it doesn’t matter what you or I think about whether what he does is gambling or not.
Statistics however do matter .
Look what the professionals say about the success rate of such people. And I don’t mean just any people but people who received a proper training from professionals. This company has statistics from people they trained themselves on speculative trading:

https://vantagepointtrading.com/whats-t ... gh-answer/

If success is defined as just being negligibly profitable (for at least a couple months) the success rate is about 6% to 8%.


This means the remaining 92-94% were negligibly at loss which proves the point he’s actually gambling on the 50-50 threshold.
Furthermore:
https://vantagepointtrading.com/why-mos ... quires-it/

Most traders have heard the statistics "95% of traders lose money" or "Only a few percent of traders make a living at it."
While the numbers vary slightly from study to study, the fact is many traders will lose money and it can’t be avoided. All sorts of reasons are given for the losses, including poor money management, bad timing, or a poor strategy. These factors do play a role in individual trading success…but there is a deeper reason why most people lose.
Most traders will lose regardless of what methods they employ.

Furthermore if you are interested for the psychological pattern of such persons there are academic studies who prove there’s a direct relation between gamblers and speculators.

https://akademiai.com/doi/full/10.1556/2006.5.2016.084

At an individual level, speculation has a particularly strong empirical relationship to gambling, as speculators appear to be heavily involved in traditional forms of gambling and problematic speculation is strongly correlated with problematic gambling.

[Paphitis]

Do you still insist this guy is "investing"?? He admitted it it over and over again he is speculating. Speculative trading at the stock markets is gambling with a mere 50-50 chance to gain or lose. Google it.

Which guy? Milti?

Yes Milti is investing. He is trading to be more precise. Short term trading.

Big Fund Managers go for long term growth. The 2 styles are completely different.

Trading is more risky. But the returns are much higher too. You saw Milti make a few hundred Euros in just a few days.

I call it investing for a few reasons.

Milti picked a pretty good and rock solid stock in Tom Tom. I believed this was an excellent pick on his behalf.

he also picked Ripple. I do not know what Ripple do and I haven't looked into it and therefore do not know if they are good. But Milti told us he did his research and looked into it. Therefore, he is claiming to have made an informed decision. Therefore, it is short term trading and investing.

Speculators are those guys who go for the start ups and the penny dreadfuls. And I wouldn't call that gambling either because these guys usually win big.

This isn't like going to the casino and betting on red and black.

High end managed funds are a different kettle of fish altogether. They go for the long term returns.

But if you what to be specific as per the definition. A property investor who buys a property is also speculating. But he is not gambling. He is trying to achieve a profit and a return on that property over time. It could also go the other way, but that too is not gambling.

When your chances are 50-50 or less it's gambling by definition.
Statistics prove that his chances are actually lower than 50-50, as you may learn from the links below.
What he does is relying on questionable media information often spread on purpose to catch fish. That’s not a calculated risk. That’s basically nothing. The fact that he presumably made some money so far (which I personally doubt) can only be attributed to pure luck.
Do you wanna bet he is going to lose everything he gained to far from TomTom on Ripple which he plans to keep upto end of December?

Regardless, it doesn’t matter what you or I think about whether what he does is gambling or not.
Statistics however do matter .
Look what the professionals say about the success rate of such people. And I don’t mean just any people but people who received a proper training from professionals. This company has statistics from people they trained themselves on speculative trading:

https://vantagepointtrading.com/whats-t ... gh-answer/

If success is defined as just being negligibly profitable (for at least a couple months) the success rate is about 6% to 8%.


This means the remaining 92-94% were negligibly at loss which proves the point he’s actually gambling on less than the 50-50 threshold.
Furthermore:
https://vantagepointtrading.com/why-mos ... quires-it/

Most traders have heard the statistics "95% of traders lose money" or "Only a few percent of traders make a living at it."
While the numbers vary slightly from study to study, the fact is many traders will lose money and it can’t be avoided. All sorts of reasons are given for the losses, including poor money management, bad timing, or a poor strategy. These factors do play a role in individual trading success…but there is a deeper reason why most people lose.
Most traders will lose regardless of what methods they employ.

Furthermore if you are interested for the psychological pattern of such persons there are academic studies who prove there’s a direct relation between gamblers and speculators.

https://akademiai.com/doi/full/10.1556/2006.5.2016.084

At an individual level, speculation has a particularly strong empirical relationship to gambling, as speculators appear to be heavily involved in traditional forms of gambling and problematic speculation is strongly correlated with problematic gambling.

You don't get it do you?

Your chances should be a lot better than 50%. When you do your research, and pick your timing, you should make a gain more often than not.

You are not going to buy into a stock that is struggling.

And if you are going for long term growth, your chances should be somehere between 80 to 90%, maybe more.

Plus, a stock can only go up or down. If it goes down, it will only go down a bit. You are not placing a winner takes all bet.

[DT.]

While at business school, we had an awesome modern portfolio theory lecturer. Showed us an unbelievable video with monkeys throwing darts at a board with tickers stuck on them.

Monkeys were picking more winners than the fidelity managers

[Pyrpolizer]

You don't get it do you?

Your chances should be a lot better than 50%. When you do your research, and pick your timing, you should make a gain more often than not.

You are not going to buy into a stock that is struggling.

And if you are going for long term growth, your chances should be somehere between 80 to 90%, maybe more.

Plus, a stock can only go up or down. If it goes down, it will only go down a bit. You are not placing a winner takes all bet.

Did you start the nonsense again? SHOULD and WOULD does not reflect reality regarding individual traders and statistics don't lie.
Read and learn.
Most traders will lose regardless of what methods they employ.

[Paphitis]

You don't get it do you?

Your chances should be a lot better than 50%. When you do your research, and pick your timing, you should make a gain more often than not.

You are not going to buy into a stock that is struggling.

And if you are going for long term growth, your chances should be somehere between 80 to 90%, maybe more.

Plus, a stock can only go up or down. If it goes down, it will only go down a bit. You are not placing a winner takes all bet.

Did you start the nonsense again? SHOULD and WOULD does not reflect reality regarding individual traders and statistics don't lie.
Read and learn.
Most traders will lose regardless of what methods they employ.

Really? If most traders lose, the markets would be dead.

You don't go back more more punishment.

The statistics don't lie alright.

Balanced Funds = 8% per annum
Aggressive = 12% per annum.

I am telling you from my personal experience that my fund from 1992 till today has netted approximately 12% per annum average.

And the above are pretty conservative approaches to long term investing.

Traders can do a lot better than that.

[DT.]

You don't get it do you?

Your chances should be a lot better than 50%. When you do your research, and pick your timing, you should make a gain more often than not.

You are not going to buy into a stock that is struggling.

And if you are going for long term growth, your chances should be somehere between 80 to 90%, maybe more.

Plus, a stock can only go up or down. If it goes down, it will only go down a bit. You are not placing a winner takes all bet.

Did you start the nonsense again? SHOULD and WOULD does not reflect reality regarding individual traders and statistics don't lie.
Read and learn.
Most traders will lose regardless of what methods they employ.

Really? If most traders lose, the markets would be dead.

You don't go back more more punishment.

The statistics don't lie alright.

Balanced Funds = 8% per annum
Aggressive = 12% per annum.

I am telling you from my personal experience that my fund from 1992 till today has netted approximately 12% per annum average.

And the above are pretty conservative approaches to long term investing.

Traders can do a lot better than that.

Doesn’t matter.

What matters is what the benchmark they worked against did.

If their stock universe appreciated by 30% and your guys made 12%, they’re shit.

[Paphitis]

You don't get it do you?

Your chances should be a lot better than 50%. When you do your research, and pick your timing, you should make a gain more often than not.

You are not going to buy into a stock that is struggling.

And if you are going for long term growth, your chances should be somehere between 80 to 90%, maybe more.

Plus, a stock can only go up or down. If it goes down, it will only go down a bit. You are not placing a winner takes all bet.

Did you start the nonsense again? SHOULD and WOULD does not reflect reality regarding individual traders and statistics don't lie.
Read and learn.
Most traders will lose regardless of what methods they employ.

Really? If most traders lose, the markets would be dead.

You don't go back more more punishment.

The statistics don't lie alright.

Balanced Funds = 8% per annum
Aggressive = 12% per annum.

I am telling you from my personal experience that my fund from 1992 till today has netted approximately 12% per annum average.

And the above are pretty conservative approaches to long term investing.

Traders can do a lot better than that.

Doesn’t matter.

What matters is what the benchmark they worked against did.

If their stock universe appreciated by 30% and your guys made 12%, they’re shit.

Well DT, I think that they outperform the actual Dow Jones and ASX indices actually.

Usually, they don't lose as much during corrections, and they generally outperform the indices during the bull runs.

Yes there are traders that make 30% whilst our fund makes 8% or 12% but these fund managers are not going to take the huge risks for the big money.

[DT.]

You don't get it do you?

Your chances should be a lot better than 50%. When you do your research, and pick your timing, you should make a gain more often than not.

You are not going to buy into a stock that is struggling.

And if you are going for long term growth, your chances should be somehere between 80 to 90%, maybe more.

Plus, a stock can only go up or down. If it goes down, it will only go down a bit. You are not placing a winner takes all bet.

Did you start the nonsense again? SHOULD and WOULD does not reflect reality regarding individual traders and statistics don't lie.
Read and learn.
Most traders will lose regardless of what methods they employ.

Really? If most traders lose, the markets would be dead.

You don't go back more more punishment.

The statistics don't lie alright.

Balanced Funds = 8% per annum
Aggressive = 12% per annum.

I am telling you from my personal experience that my fund from 1992 till today has netted approximately 12% per annum average.

And the above are pretty conservative approaches to long term investing.

Traders can do a lot better than that.

Doesn’t matter.

What matters is what the benchmark they worked against did.

If their stock universe appreciated by 30% and your guys made 12%, they’re shit.

Well DT, I think that they outperform the actual Dow Jones and ASX indices actually.

Usually, they don't lose as much during corrections, and they generally outperform the indices during the bull runs.

Yes there are traders that make 30% whilst our fund makes 8% or 12% but these fund managers are not going to take the huge risks for the big money.

Well the Dow Jones industrial since 92 has netted 626% return. Your managers would have done better if they’d just bought an index tracker and paid back your fees.

[Paphitis]

Well the Dow Jones industrial since 92 has netted 626% return. Your managers would have done better if they’d just bought an index tracker and paid back your fees.

That is an option that they offer. They offer the index tracker as an investment option.

And I suppose if I had a Dow Jones Index Tracker since 1992, I would have made 692%. But ordinary shares have been doubling on average every 5 to 7 years too. So they have rolled over 4 times ++ a bit.

[Pyrpolizer]

You don't get it do you?

Your chances should be a lot better than 50%. When you do your research, and pick your timing, you should make a gain more often than not.

You are not going to buy into a stock that is struggling.

And if you are going for long term growth, your chances should be somehere between 80 to 90%, maybe more.

Plus, a stock can only go up or down. If it goes down, it will only go down a bit. You are not placing a winner takes all bet.

Did you start the nonsense again? SHOULD and WOULD does not reflect reality regarding individual traders and statistics don't lie.
Read and learn.
Most traders will lose regardless of what methods they employ.

Really? If most traders lose, the markets would be dead.

You don't go back more more punishment.

The statistics don't lie alright.

Balanced Funds = 8% per annum
Aggressive = 12% per annum.

I am telling you from my personal experience that my fund from 1992 till today has netted approximately 12% per annum average.

And the above are pretty conservative approaches to long term investing.

Traders can do a lot better than that.

Nope! 95% fail and get out, the remaining 5% succeed and continue.
You are confusing the number of traders with the market annual performance.
Typical confused Paphitis as per usual.