Doesn't the conclusion indirectly also indicate that day trading is a zero sum game?
If the answer is yes, then the only way you can make money from day trading is from commissions you earn performing day trade on behalf of other parties with money.
If the answer is yes, then the only way you can make money from day trading is from commissions you earn performing day trade on behalf of other parties with money.
First they ran in simulation, not the real market. It may be that that act of being in the market changes the market enough to make your strategy work. (though typically it is the opposite - things work in simulation but applying them to the market makes them not work). As such this paper doesn't really tell us anything useful.
Even if we ignore the above, they only tested a few different strategies. That says nothing about any other trading strategy that someone might apply: any of them might work.
I still think day trading is a bad way to invest, but this paper doesn't prove anything even though it speaks to my bias.
Can you elaborate? Is this because large flows of money eventually become the market? Insinuating that some strategies only work at low trade volume?
In some less honest markets there are even cases where what the numbers say you can trade isn't possible because those offering the deal won't follow through, or will let a friend in ahead of you
Zero-sums game are actually proven to have a winning strategy.
Chess is a zero sum game.
But all of those qualifiers I mentioned are needed, and that's a lot of qualifiers. If any of them are no longer true then there is not guaranteed to be a winning strategy.
In chess, it's possible to end the game in a draw, so Zermelo's theorem does not apply to it and OPs claim is wrong about chess.
I'm fairly certain one can trivially disqualify one of those criteria when it comes to financial markets as well.
Isn't it even assumed that a perfect game of chess is a draw. Once chess is solved, it'll be all draws.