Is stock trading based more on luck than poker playing?
I'd say that it cannot be meaningfully calculated or measured because the two are just too different in every way. Poker Stock trading I guess the last point (that someone relying on luck is exploitable in poker but not in stock trading) could be interpreted as stock trading being based more on luck, while the second and third points indicated that poker has more true randomness and is thus based more on luck. Something both have in common is that people who have been losing money are often tempted to take stupid risks which lose them everything. "This depends strongly on what you mean by ""stock trading"".  It isn't a single game, but a huge number of games grouped under a single name. You can invest in individual stocks. If you're willing to make the (large) effort needed to research the companies and their current position and potentialities, this can yield large returns at high risk, or moderate returns at moderate risk. You need to diversify across multiple stocks, and multiple kinds of stocks (and probably bonds and other investment vehicles as well) to manage that risk. Or you can invest in managed mutual funds, where someone picks and balances the stocks for you. They charge a fee for that service, which has to be subtracted from their stated returns. You need to decide how much you trust them. You will usually need to diversify across multiple funds to get the balance of risk you're looking for, with a few exceptions like Target Date funds. Or you can invest in index funds, which automate the stock-picking process to take a wide view of the market and count on the fact that, over time, the market as a whole moves upward. These may not produce the same returns on paper, but their fees are MUCH lower -- enough so that the actual returns to the investor can be as good as, or better than, managed funds. The same point about diversification remains true, with the same exceptions. Or you can invest in a mixture of these, plus bonds and other investment vehicles, to suit your own level of confidence in your abilities, confidence in the market as a whole, risk tolerance, and so on. Having said all that, there's also a huge difference between ""trading"" and ""investing"", at least as I use the terms. Stock trading on a short-term basis is much closer to pure gambling -- unless you do the work to deeply research the stocks in question so you know their value better than other people do, and you're playing against pros. You know the rule about poker: If you look around the table and don't see the sucker, he's sitting in your seat... well, that's true to some degree in short-term trading too. This isn't quite a zero-sum game, but it takes more work to play well than I consider worth the effort. Investing for the long term -- defining a balanced mixture of investments and maintaining that mixture for years, with purchases and sales chosen to keep things balanced -- is a positive sum game, since the market does drift upward over time at a long-term average of about 8%/year. If you're sufficiently diversified (which is one reason I like index funds), you're basically riding that rise. This puts you in the position of betting with the pros rather than against them, which is a lower-risk position. Of course the potential returns are reduced too, but I've found that ""market rate of return"" has been entirely adequate, though not exciting. Of course there's risk here too, if the market dips for some reason, such as the ""great recession"" we just went through -- but if you're planning for the long term you can usually ride out such dips, and perhaps even see them as opportunities to buy at a discount. Others can tell you more about the details of each of these, and may disagree with my characterizations ... but that's the approach I've taken, based on advice I trust. I could probably increase my returns if I was willing to invest more time and effort in doing so, but I don't especially like playing games for money, and I'm getting quite enough for my purposes and spending near-zero effort on it, which is exactly what I want." I assert not so. Even if we assume a zero sum game (which is highly in doubt); the general stock market curves indicate the average player is so bad that you don't have to be very good to have better that 50/50 averages. One example: UP stock nosedived right after some political mess in Russia two years ago. Buy! Profit: half my money in a month. I knew that nosedive was senseless as UP doesn't have to care much about what goes on in Russia. Rising oil price was a reasonable prediction; however this is good for railroads, and most short-term market trends behave as if it is bad.
We're probably thinking of different jobs. I have read countless stories of how if you want to be an investment banker or a quant, you need to go to an ivy league school and be at the top of your class. But I have also heard that many traders are more akin to blue-collar workers, and only need the gusto. being prepared to take advantage of opportunities is also determined by luck. Did you get to choose who your parents were or how they brought you up, eventually defining your personality and therefore propensity to be prepared for opportunities?  No.  Did you get to choose what random events occurred around an opportunity, which modified your ability or propensity to act up on it? No.   The idea of 'success' depends on the idea of free will and the ability to overcome disadvantages, but you don't even need to rule out free will to see that ability itself is determined by luck.   Luck is all.   Read The Sirens of Titan by Vonnegut, it really solidified my thinking in this vein. Someone entering a casino with $15 could employ a very simple strategy and have a better-than-90% chance of walking out with $16.  Unfortunately, the person would have a non-trivial chance (about one in 14) of walking out with $0. If after losing $15 the person withdrew $240 from the bank and tried to win $16, the person would have a better-than-90% chance of succeeding and ending up ahead (holding the original $15, plus the additional $240, plus $1) but would have at that point about a one in 14 chance from that point of losing the $240 along with the original $15.  Measured from the starting point, you'd have about a 199 out of 200 chance of gaining $1, and a one out of 200 chance of losing $240. Market-timing bets are like that.  You can arrange things so you have a significant chance of making a small profit, but at the risk of a large downside.  If you haven't firmly decided exactly how much downside you are willing to accept, it's very easy to simultaneously believe you don't have much money at risk, but that you'll be able to win back anything you lose.  The only way you can hope to win back anything you lose is by bringing a lot more money to the table, which will of course greatly increase your downside risk. The probability of making money for the person willing to accept $15 of downside risk to earn $1 is about 93%.  The probability of making money for the person willing to accept $255 worth of risk is about 99.5%.  It's easy to see that there are ways of playing which have a 99.5% chance of winning, and that there are ways of playing that only have a 15:1 downside risk.  Unfortunately, the ways of playing that have the smaller risk don't have anything near a 99.9% chance of winning, and those that have a better chance of winning have a much larger downside risk. "Clearly you aren't in trading. While that is the case for IBanking, I personally work with numerous very successful traders who ""underperformed their peers"" and I'm not doing so bad myself either.   Having a good GPA has almost no correlation with being a good trader. Honestly, from the interviews I've given I've found that the kids with the extremely high GPA's 4.0, were less suited for the profession." "Even the Wall Street jobs require skill, knowing how the stock market work, knowing how people work, etc.   Even saying ""that luck is the main factor in the majority of cases of great wealth"" is still wrong.   Really the only time luck is the real reason is non skill based gambling games (lottery, slots, etc), inheritance, and finding a wallet on the side of the road/street" Mark Zuckerburg is a mixture of hard work, intelligence, and soullessness.  He spent more time working, reading, or studying, when others were out drinking.  That's the story of most successful people.  They spend their time taking risk, so they make their own luck.  Sure, it boils down to luck, but you can't be lucky if you don't play.  What people like to hear worse is that they can make their own success.  Though success on the Facebook level seems to have some aspects of luck, most successful people are successful because they spend their time taking risk.  If you are working for someone else, you are not taking a risk.  If you are goofing off, you are not really taking a risk.  Unless you are specifically building project for profit, or performing some service, this luck will never shine down on you. It is not luck just as much it was destined to happen. If you want to get real technical, it's the every action he has taken(both mental and physical), from BIRTH, that put him, or anyone else for that matter, in the financial and medical health we're in at this very very second. "If they could really do this, do you really think they would be wasting their time offering this course? You are being lied to. (Or more accurately: It's certainly possible to gamble and get lucky, but those gambles are  more likely to result in your rapidly  losing your money than in your rapidly gaining value.) It is possible to make money in the market. But ""market rate of return"" has historically averaged around  8%. That won't make you rich by itself, but it's better return than you can get from banks... at higher risk, please note. There are places in the market where, by accepting more risk of losing your money, you can improve on that 8%. For me the risk and effort are too much for the potential additional gains, but de gustibus." There are those who would suggest that due to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, stocks are always fairly valued. Consider, if non-professional posters on SE (here) had a method that worked beyond random chance, everyone seeking such a method would soon know it. If everyone used that method, it would lose its advantage. In theory, this is how stocks' values remain rational.  That said, Williams %R is one such indicator. It can be seen in action on Yahoo finance -  In the end, I find such indicators far less useful than the news itself. BP oil spill - Did anyone believe that such a huge oil company wouldn't recover from that disaster? It recovered by nearly doubling from its bottom after that news. A chart of NFLX (Netflix) offers a similar news disaster, and recovery.  Both of these examples are not quantifiable, in my opinion, just gut reactions. A quick look at the company and answer to one question - Do I feel this company will recover? To be candid - in the 08/09 crash, I felt that way about Ford and GM. Ford returned 10X from the bottom, GM went through bankruptcy. That observation suggests another question, i.e. where is the line drawn between 'investing' and 'gambling'? My answer is that buying one stock hoping for its recovery is gambling. Being able to do this for 5-10 stocks, or one every few months, is investing. I agree with the other answers, but I want to give a slightly different perspective. I believe that a lot of people are smart enough to beat the market, but that it takes a lot more dedication, patience, and self-control than they think. Before Warren Buffett buys a stock, he has read the quarterly reports for years, has personally met with management, has visited facilities, etc. If you aren't willing to do that kind of analysis for every stock you buy, then I think that you are doing little more than gambling. If you are just using the information that everyone else has, then you'll get the returns that everyone else gets (if you're lucky). No, the stock market and investing in general is not a zero sum game.  Some types of trades are zero sum because of the nature of the trade.   But someone isn't necessarily losing when you gain in the sale of a stock or other security. I'm not going to type out a technical thesis for your question.  But the main failure of the idea that investing is zero sum is the fact the a company does not participate in the transacting of its stock in the secondary market nor does it set the price. This is materially different from the trading of options contracts.  Options contracts are the trading of risk, one side of the contract wins and one side of the contract loses. If you want to run down the economic theory that if Jenny bought her shares from Bob someone else is missing out on Jenny's money you're free to do that.  But that would mean that literally every transaction in the entire economy is part of a zero sum game (and really misses the definition of zero sum game). Poker is a zero sum game.  All players bet in to the game in equal amounts, one player takes all the money.  And hell, I've played poker and lost but still sometimes feel that received value in the form of entertainment. Being lucky is definitely a part of it, but being smart on how to navigate each choice is NOT based on luck.   Think of a blackjack game. A game based on luck, but you can make logical moves that can help you win. Do you double-down on an 11 with 3 face cards on the table?, probably not. Do you split the tens with lots of low cards on the table?, yes.  So to think it's only luck that determines one success is naive. "You have already indicted in another question, titled Which risk did I take winning this much?, that you did not understand (1) Why a previous trade made you as much money as it did; nor (2) How much you could have lost if things went a different way. You were, in that other question, talking about taking short position, without understanding (apparently) that a short position can create losses exceeding the value of your initial investment. Can one make money doing day trading? Yes, an educated investor may be able to prudently invest in short term positions making knowledgeable judgments about risk, and still make money. Can you make money doing day trading? Well, maybe. You have in the past, in what you described in a previous post as ""winning"". So even in your own eyes, you were effectively gambling, and got lucky. Perhaps the more relevant questions you can ask yourself are: Can you lose money doing day trading? And, most importantly, Are you more likely to lose money day trading, or consistently make money by taking on reasonable and educated risks?" &gt; No, because I assert that it's not only about these lucky events. It still takes some degree of intelligence, or insight, and hard work  That is just as, if not more, superstitious as believing in luck as a measurable force.  Without prescience, it's impossible to predict which way hard work will pay off.  'luck' (or coincidence, if you prefer) can cut you out of the successful herd in a single morning of stock market flunctuations.    You're talking about good choices, when the case in point we just read showed that lewis make blind, dumb choices twice that paid off - and shouldn't have.   &gt; with the ability and drive to maximize the opportunity  Again, what you are talking about involves predicting how a presented advantage will pan out.  Choosing nearly-identical employer A instead of B will only be obviously a good choice in hindsight.  Getting it right is 'luck'. "The policy you quoted suggests you deposit 6% minimum. That $6,000 will cost you $4,500 due to the tax effect, yet after the match, you'll have $9,000 in the account. Taxable on withdrawal, but a great boost to the account.  The question of where is less clear. There must be more than the 2 choices you mention. Most plans have 'too many' choices. This segues into my focus on expenses. A few years back, PBS Frontline aired a program titled The Retirement Gamble, in which fund expenses were discussed, with a focus on how an extra 1% in expenses will wipe out an extra 1/3 of your wealth in a 40 year period. Very simple to illustrate this - go to a calculator and enter .99 raised to the power of 40. .669 is the result. My 401(k) has an expense of .02% (that's 1/50 of 1%) .9998 raised to the same 40 gives .992, in other words, a cost of .8% over the full 40 years. My wife and I are just retired, and will have less in expenses for the rest of our lives than the average account cost for just 1 year.  In your situation, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell you to maximize the 401(k) deposit at the current (2016) $18,000. That might be appropriate, but I'd suggest you look at the expense of the S&P index (sometime called Large Cap Fund, but see the prospectus) and if it's costing much more than .75%/yr, I'd go with an IRA (Roth, if you can't deduct the traditional IRA). Much of the value of the 401(k) beyond the match is the tax differential, i.e. depositing while in the 25% bracket, but withdrawing the funds at retirement, hopefully at 15%. It doesn't take long for the extra expense and the ""holy cow, my 401(k) just turned decades of dividends and long term cap gains into ordinary income"" effect to take over. Understand this now, not 30 years hence.  Last - to answer your question, 'how much'? I often recommend what may seem a cliche ""continue to live like a student."" Half the country lives on $54K or less. There's certainly a wide gray area, but in general, a person starting out will choose one of 2 paths, living just at, or even above his means, or living way below, and saving, say, 30-40% off the top. Even 30% doesn't hit the extreme saver level. If you do this, you'll find that if/when you get married, buy a house, have kids, etc. you'll still be able to save a reasonable percent of your income toward retirement.  In response to your comment, what counts as retirement savings? There's a concept used as part of the budgeting process known as the envelope system. For those who have an income where there's little discretionary money left over each month, the method of putting money aside into small buckets is a great idea. In your case, say you take me up on the 30-40% challenge. 15% of it goes to a hard and fast retirement account. The rest, to savings, according to the general order of emergency fund, 6-12 months expenses, to cover a job loss, another fund for random expenses, such as new transmission (I've never needed one, but I hear they are expensive), and then the bucket towards house down payment. Keep in mind, I have no idea where you live or what a reasonable house would cost. Regardless, a 20-25% downpayment on even a $250K house is $60K. That will take some time to save up. If the housing in your area is more, bump it accordingly.  If the savings starts to grow beyond any short term needs, it gets invested towards the long term, and is treated as ""retirement"" money. There is no such thing as Saving too much. When I turned 50 and was let go from a 30 year job, I wasn't unhappy that I saved too much and could call it quits that day. Had I been saving just right, I'd have been 10 years shy of my target."