|
|
|
|
|
|
by GuB-42
1717 days ago
|
|
|
If trading is a zero-sum game, which it is on a small scale, then random strategies are bound to be in the middle of the pack. It is like rock-paper-scissors. A random player will win 50% of their games regardless of the other player strategy. When two non-random players play, one will successfully predict the other player moves and win more than 50% of the time, the other will fail and win less than 50% of the time. So the ranking will always be 1. winning strategies 2. random 3. losing strategies, with as many winners as there are losers, and any number of randoms. So, random is more successful than half of the technical strategies. |
|
|
Are you saying that someone who trades a small amount of capital is always winning an amount of money that is roughly equal (+/-) what the counterparty lost or vice-versa? That can be demonstrated to be untrue.
Are you saying that trades spanning a short period of time always win or lose an amount that sums up to zero for all participants? That also seems highly unlikely unless all participants are engaged in short term trading which is not true in practice.
At any rate, while I've heard this claim repeated often, I've never heard anyone substantiate it and as far as I can tell it doesn't really make sense.
There are financial instruments that are zero-sum by their nature with respect to dollars, for example derivatives and currencies are by nature zero sum with respect to dollars, although they are not zero sum if you factor in risk. But that has nothing to do with short vs. long term though. Equities are not zero-sum, long term or short term.