Most retail traders lose money, a meaningful minority show signs of disordered trading comparable to problem gambling, and more trading activity does not buy more skill. Those three claims sound like they could come from anywhere, so here they are with the actual study behind each one. This page exists because most articles on this topic repeat a figure without a source. This one does not.
How many traders actually lose money
| Finding | Source |
|---|---|
| 97% of day traders lost money over 300 trading days (Brazil, n=19,646) | Chague and De-Losso, 2020 |
| 92.8% of individual futures and options traders lost money, FY22 to FY24 (India) | Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2024 |
| 74% to 89% of retail accounts lost money trading CFDs, depending on provider (EU and UK) | ESMA-mandated broker risk disclosures, ongoing since 2018 |
These are three independent sources, two different countries, and one continent-wide regulatory requirement, all converging on the same order of magnitude. That convergence is the actual finding, more than any single number is.
How many traders show signs of disordered trading
| Finding | Source |
|---|---|
| 10.2% met the threshold for disordered trading, 17.6% classified at risk (Spain, n=403 amateur traders) | Coloma-Carmona et al., Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2025 |
| 26.3% met criteria for problematic cryptocurrency trading; problem gambling was the strongest single predictor (Turkey, n=596 active crypto traders) | 2025 crypto-trading study, peer-reviewed |
| Problematic cryptoasset trading was associated with higher depression, anxiety, and social isolation scores, consistent across demographics (US, n=239 cryptoasset investors) | Meshi, Jang, Mei, Ratan and Foxman, PLOS One, 2026 |
Read together, these three studies are the clearest evidence to date that problematic trading is a recognisable, measurable pattern, not a moral failing or a marketing term. It is covered in depth on is trading addictive.
Does more trading mean more skill?
No, according to the research most frequently cited on this question. Barber and Odean's study of individual brokerage accounts (Journal of Finance, 2000) found the highest-turnover fifth of investors earned 11.4% annually against a 17.9% market return over the same window, a 6.5 percentage point gap explained mostly by trading costs and poor timing. In a gambling frame, that gap functions like a house edge: the more often you play, the more the cost of playing compounds against you, regardless of skill.
Is the trading-gambling overlap real, or just a comparison people like to make
It is measured. A 2025 study in the Journal of Gambling Studies(Leslie, Shaw and McGrath, "Correlates of Gambling Behaviours Among Day Traders", volume 41, pages 51 to 66) compared 467 day traders with 9,558 non-day-traders and found day trading associated with higher problem-gambling risk. The predictor was not trading volume or hours at the screen, it was a greater endorsement of gambling fallacies and a failure to prefer skill-based games over chance-based ones, covered in detail on gambling fallacies that sneak into trading.
Two honesty notes on this finding, because overstating it would undermine the rest of this page. It is correlational, so it does not show trading causes gambling problems, the causation could run the other way or share a common cause. And most traders in that study, and in general, do not show elevated problem-gambling risk. The finding is real and narrow, not a blanket claim about everyone who trades.
Other numbers worth knowing, with the same caveat
- Loss aversion, the tendency to feel a loss roughly twice as intensely as an equivalent gain, is commonly cited around a 2:1 ratio from Kahneman and Tversky's prospect theory work. The exact ratio is debated in later replications, but the direction of the effect, losses hurting more than gains feel good, is well established. See loss aversion in trading for the full picture.
- Post-loss cortisol and risk-taking shifts in real traders were documented by Coates and Herbert (PNAS, 2008), covered on what happens to your brain after a loss.
What this page deliberately does not claim
It does not claim a specific percentage of losses are caused by revenge trading or tilt specifically, because no study measures that cleanly. It does not claim any technique, product, or app increases trading profitability, because none of the research above measures that either. What the evidence does support is narrower and more useful: trading and gambling overlap more than most traders assume, the overlap is measurable rather than anecdotal, and the traders at highest risk are identifiable by their reasoning patterns, not by how often they trade.
Frequently asked questions
What percentage of day traders lose money?
Independent studies across different markets converge on a similar range. A Brazilian study of 19,646 day traders (Chague and De-Losso, 2020) found 97% lost money over 300 trading days. India’s regulator SEBI found 92.8% of individual futures and options traders lost money across FY22 to FY24. CFD providers operating in the EU and UK are legally required to disclose retail loss rates, which typically run 74% to 89% depending on the broker.
What percentage of traders show signs of disordered or problematic trading?
A 2025 study of 403 Spanish amateur traders using a newly validated Trading Disorder Scale (Coloma-Carmona et al., Journal of Behavioral Addictions) found 10.2% met the threshold for disordered trading and a further 17.6% were classified at risk, meaning roughly a quarter showed some level of problematic pattern. In crypto specifically, a 2025 study of 596 active traders in Turkey found 26.3% met criteria for problematic cryptocurrency trading.
Does more trading activity mean more skill?
The classic finding says no. Barber and Odean’s research on individual investor accounts (Journal of Finance, 2000) found the highest-turnover fifth of investors earned 11.4% annually versus a 17.9% market return over the same period, a 6.5 percentage point gap driven mainly by trading costs and poor timing. More trades bought worse results, not better ones.
Is there real evidence connecting trading to problem gambling, or is that just a metaphor?
It is measured, not just a metaphor, though the evidence is correlational rather than causal. A 2025 study in the Journal of Gambling Studies compared 467 day traders with 9,558 non-day-traders and found day trading associated with higher problem-gambling risk, predicted specifically by gambling fallacies rather than by trading volume or hours. That is a real, published, peer-reviewed finding, and it does not prove trading causes gambling problems, only that the two overlap more than chance would predict.
The summary
Most retail traders lose money, roughly a quarter of amateur traders show at-risk or disordered trading patterns, more activity does not buy more skill, and a measurable, though correlational, link exists between day trading and problem-gambling risk. Every figure above traces to a named, checkable source. Gambling vs trading: where is the line turns these numbers into a practical test for your own trading.