"Micro-trading" is called simulation. Unlike poker, where the game gets harder as you move up in stakes, there's really no difference trading T-bonds (or whatever) in simulation or trading them for big money. The game doesn't get any harder assuming your simulation tracks FIFO execution correctly. But unlike poker, where it's trivially easy at the low stakes, trading doesn't start easy.

Most trading venues will require about $10,000 to really get a meaningful start. Some more, some slightly less.

This is a mathematically nonsensical statement. Given equal edge, you minimize variance by taking more, smaller bets which day trading facilitates. Taking fewer, larger, longer term bets like swing or position trading requires maximizes variance. This is fairly analogous to multi-tabling 100NL vs. one table of 1000NL in poker. More "hands" equals less variance for the same return.

Of course, ultimately you have to go wherever the edge and liquidity are to be found. But given a choice, day trading is preferable.

you also need to factor in commission costs

This is not necessarily true with modern commission structures. For example IB's stock commissions for US equities are $0.005 per transaction per share. The minimum commission is $1 per transaction. Therefore, as long as you're trading at least 2 lots, you're paying the same proportional rate as everyone else. You can simply divide any deposit amount by 200 to figure out what stock prices you could trade without penalty. For example, with a $5000 account, anything up to $25 per share would be fine.

Obviously if you're in the US the patern day trader rule can throw a spanner in the works.

A much bigger risk to the new trader's money than commissions is simply trading without a quantified mathematical edge - in other words taking trades where your exit price is worse than your entry price on average. Overcoming that problem is a much bigger issue than overcoming commissions these days. And that's where simulation comes in.

Certainly. They would be part of the calculation of your edge. You'll notice that again the poker analogy holds - rake is proportionally bigger at 100NL than at 1000NL.

It probably is SLIGHTLY harder to develop a good edge on short time frames (partially because of commissions), but only slightly. Swing trading is no walk in the park either.

If people are making so much money daytrading, why do you have outstanding books like 'The Intelligent Investor' and people like Buffett strongly advocating against it and saying that studies show that nobody makes money this way in the long-run?

There's lots of people who would advise you against playing poker for a living too. Many of those people are very accomplished in other areas. That doesn't mean they're knowledgeable about the economics of the game or that their advice is up to date. It's also true that advice which is correct for "normal" people is not correct for exceptionally skilled people. Playing any zero sum game without exceptional skill is stupid.

The intelligent investor was written in 1949. Back then there were no digital exchanges, and it was more or less impossible to day trade stocks through a broker due to insane commissions. So day trading essentially anything without an exchange seat was indeed a loser's game. But it's not 1949 any more.

If YOU don't want to day trade, great. I have no interest in telling you want to do with your capital. But the merits of the proposition can be discussed independent of your personal beliefs.

Do you day trade and have you made a lot of money over a long period of time? Or have you ever met anyone in your life who has made a lot of money at this over a long period of time?

this thread should be deleted from the internet for the greater good

Obv online poker.A no brainer

As someone learning to trade, I think this thread should be kept open just so that every time I feel down and like an idiot for not understanding anything I realize that there are others out there more hopeless than me.

Neither of these sources know everything there is to know about markets. Not only that, but both Graham and Buffett are human, which means they can and will be wrong at times. You can't just accept everything a successful person says as the gospel.

I wasn't. I was also looking at studies, along with the fact that I haven't ever met anyone who has made serious money at it long-term. Have you?

Yes, a reasonable amount, and yes.

You may not have "met" anyone, but you can go look up what the trading desks of the major investment banks net out every year. I guarantee you they're all perfectly happy to buy and sell on much shorter than a 1-day time frame - they're all, among other activities, day traders.

If you can't find any rich day traders, it's because you've put in exactly zero effort looking. They're not hard to find given that many have the legal requirement to report their results, being part of publicly traded corporations or public funds with reporting requirements.

You will also find lots of losing day traders. It's a net zero sum game before commissions, and net negative after. Again, the poker analogy is apt.

But the strategies they use on trading floors would never be possible in a home setup, right? Aren't their profits coming from things like making markets and pocketing bid-ask spreads?

You can do both of those at home with the right brokerage. Believe it or not most brokers support limit orders. That's the great thing about electronic exchanges now - everyone's on an almost level field. I wouldn't try to pocket single ticks in most things because of the cost structure although there's nothing to prevent you from trying. But then again most institutional market making doesn't use a 1-tick spread. The 1-tick spread results from multiple MMs with slightly different views of "correct" price.

In general if you're going to trade super short time frame, I would recommend a "scalping" methodology targeting a handful of ticks.

This isn't for people who don't know what they're doing of course. It's a tough game. But it most definitely can be a game worth playing.

That may be true, but I think it's important to give people some perspective on the challenges here. Last week there was an "ask me anything" thread started by a professional trader at Citi with a degree in Finance from NYU. The topic of trading on his own was brought up:

I get the impression that the easiest path to becoming a day-trader would be to start by getting a degree in finance from an ivy league school and a job at an investment bank, and even then you will likely never succeed in trading from home. Of course there will be some rare exceptions (most of whom are being fooled by randomness, though perhaps a few of whom are legit). But it seems that at the very least you're going to need skill and education better than an ivy league finance graduate to pull it off.