Third, our respondents’ perceptions regarding market efficiency are almost entirely unrelated to their trading behavior. Fourth, the investment objectives of professors are, instead, largely driven by the same behavioral factor as for amateur investors – one’s confidence in his own abilities to beat the market, independent of his opinion of market efficiency.

Finance professors might say they believe in EMH, but their behaviour says otherwise. They seem to believe that “The market is efficient for everyone except me.”

Put conversely, all the active traders, hedge fund managers, prop desk traders etc might agree as much as finance profs that “markets are efficient”, but that doesn’t stop them from going to work in the morning.

Not saying I don’t believe you, I just have never heard of what you claim (I haven’t done a lot of research on it). Do you know of any online articles or papers that explain this, google has failed me.

That’s not the correct probablity to look for. Since you are trying to argue that since you (1 person) has had 60 straight days of gains, the EMH is flawed; you need to find the chance that at least 1 person would have had such luck since the stock market was created. I don’t feel like doing the math, but the odds are a ton higher than 1 in 2^60.

I fake traded also and out of 60 days probably had 40 gains. The probablity of my exact results happening (gaining the days i gained and losing the same days i lost) is 1 in 2^60 also, but that doesn’t really mean anything

I am daytrading the emini S&P 500 contract many times per day, and haven’t had a losing day in 3 months. According to EMH theory I am just supremely lucky (let’s say I only traded 60 days out of the past 90 due to vacation and holidays and weekends, and the average trading win/loss percentage over a day is a coin flip — that would make my performance possible by chance at 1 in 2^60, or 1 in 1,152,921,504,606,846,976). I don’t think so. . .