> There's no data set in which a trader has ever outperformed chance. Ever.
To know this would require knowledge of all details of every trading decision ever made. Obviously you don't have such knowledge, and neither does anyone else. So why do you keep stating stuff as fact when everyone knows that you are in no position to know that? As an aside, can *you* actually define precisely what "outperforming chance" means?
> If you want to claim differently I urge you to source that information. Please.
Many people have given your examples of how you can beat the market. e.g. investigating company fundamentals that others haven't noticed e.g. spotting patterns that nobody else has. Contrary to what you claim this is not illegal at all.
> There's still a Nobel Prize waiting
No, there is no Nobel Prize for beating the market. You would also not win a Nobel Prize in economics for beating the market, because you would not be showing anything surprising. There are no serious economics who believe that markets are 100% efficient. Highly efficient, maybe, 100% efficient, no.
Your claim is that there is no statistical pattern in any data and that all information about all companies is spread across the whole market. This is an extraordinary claim that I don't see you backing up with any data at all.
The chance that, out of the entire universe of traders, the precise number who beat the market should beat it. If there was such a formula you'd have EVERY trader beat the market.
The best a trader can claim is that, within the realm of chance, he or she is the one that consistently achieves these results. But the point being made is that if you had a similar number of monkeys as you do traders, and they based their decisions on throwing darts at a map, you'd consistently get a similar number of monkeys beating the market as you do traders... so there is nothing statistically significant in having analysis charts versus throwing darts at a map as a strategy.
And actually there is a Nobel Prize for this, if you were to be able to prove it. It's called the Nobel Prize for economic science (bit of a misnomer there).