This blog post did not answer it's own question because it's conditions were not day trading (over 3 trades in 12 months). That condition selects for people choosing individual stocks hoping for a moonshot, for which people tend to choose riskier stocks rather than stocks actually likely to make them money. So no wonder 80% lost money. On the other hand, notice that the 20% who do make money have a large power distribution curve.

A better way would have been to compare performance versus frequency of trading (I don't expect this to prove one way or another though). The fact is, there are many strategies one could take, and it's how well you execute them that counts.

Personally, I don't find daytrading riskier than holding stocks. By far my biggest losses come from holding the wrong stocks for a long period. It just seems riskier because you have to confront yourself with the possibility of loss each day, rather than hold "long term" and deny that you are wrong.

I now take the Doyle Brunson approach. The poker champion loved to pick up small pots and felt it was critical to do by aggressively playing small hands. That way, these little wins pay for the risk of playing bigger hands over time. I've had the same experience - my daytrading tends to be small money but it stems from work done for holding long term stocks. So why not put it to use?

But, to actually make good money daytrading is still really difficult. Commissions alone can make you have to be 55/45 correct, but there is also the steamroller affect where people tend to hold on to losses and double down further. So it's also about mastering yourself in addition to your market. Otherwise, there is not reason why you can't be better: you are putting in more work than others to make good decisions, and that's how you profit. Trouble is, when are you still outgunned informationally?