
Want to pick shares? How to stop being a gambler and be a craftsman earning reliable profits
If you're anything like me, you probably didn't start investing with a perfectly thought through plan.
You may have looked at fund managers and thought you could do better.
Maybe you invested in funds, but were disappointed by the results. You wanted more control, higher returns, a bit more risk.
So you started picking shares. And that's where the trouble begins. Let me talk you through the four stages of share-picking and how to go from being a Gambler to a Craftsman.
Stage 1: The Gambler – betting on a big idea
This is how many of us start. We come across a share tip, from a broker or a bulletin board, maybe an overconfident YouTuber. We find a convincing idea. We want in.
Sometimes it works, but often the theme has already played out by the time you buy in. You don't even know you're late.
This isn't investing. It's gambling on hope, which too often ends with a loss – yes of capital, but also of confidence, which can be hard to rebuild.
Story stocks vs the statistics…
For some reason, companies that are pre-profit, or pre-revenue are even easier to project narratives onto.
At Stockopedia, we've tracked the performance of blue-sky 'story stocks' that so often dominate attention.
Stocks like Sirius Minerals – that tens of thousands lost money in. And we found roughly three-quarters of them lose money in a typical year.
We all want to believe our favourite share will be a lottery win, but the stats just don't back it up.
Only 5 per cent of pre-profit story stocks end up doubling or tripling in a year.
Stage 2: The Follower – trusting authority After a few bets fail, you smarten up.
You start following people who actually know what they're doing. People you respect. Premium content. Expert Newsletters. Communities of proven investors. This is definitely a step up. The very best investing insights are often shared by real investors, investing their own money.
But even here, there are traps. Because following others isn't the same as doing analysis. You risk just buying the story. We are all hard-wired to believe in stories. They are how we make sense of the world.
We seek story arcs in our investments – a viable turnaround plan, a heroic new CEO, a market that must be disrupted.
But Nassim Taleb warned of the 'narrative fallacy' in Fooled by Randomness – we see patterns where they really don't exist, stories where there's only noise.
So if you find yourself, or the experts you follow, projecting a Hollywood ending onto your favourite share, while ignoring the red flags – buyer beware.
It really can pay to be a sceptic.
Ready to put this strategy to the test? Try Stockopedia free for 14 days and get 25% off your first subscription as a This Is Money reader
Stage 3: The Researcher – digging deeper
So now you take your investing seriously. You learn to read financial statements. You source broker research and annual reports. You study investing books and create spreadsheets. You are doing the real work now.
You feel smarter. But even now, there's a catch – doing more research doesn't guarantee better results.
There's a study from 1973 by Paul Slovic. He asked horse racing experts to predict winners when given increasing amounts of data. At up to five data points on each horse, their accuracy improved.
Beyond that? Their confidence kept increasing, but their accuracy completely flatlined. It's a hard to swallow truth – more research makes us more confident, not more correct.
So if you find yourself doing hours of research and becoming more and more convinced in your convictions – just remember that confirmation bias can be really expensive.
I've been there. In 2008, just before the financial crisis, I had 50 per cent of my portfolio in a single AIM-listed biometrics stock. I'd done the work: bought the product, built the DCF, met the CEO. I 'knew' it would multibag.
Just give me ten minutes with my younger self and I'll save him hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Stage 4: The Craftsman – turning insights into rules
So when you've done your fair share of gambling, following, and over-researching – you may reach a point where you stop asking 'what do I think about this stock?' and start asking 'what really works in the market?' It's a subtle shift, but it's everything.
Most of the great investors made this shift. Graham. Buffett. Slater. O'Shaughnessy. They didn't just gather information – they defined investment criteria based on the evidence of what really works.
Because when you start researching what really works – across all markets in history – there are only a few core return drivers that consistently pay off.
● Quality – good, profitable stocks tend to outperform unprofitable, junk.
● Value – cheap stocks (versus earnings or assets) tend to outperform expensive stocks.
● Momentum – shares with positive price and earnings trends tend to outperform.
Not every stock with these characteristics succeeds, but on average, investing in shares with these key characteristics shifts the odds in your favour.
The study below is by Fama & French – Fama won the Nobel Prize for validating these insights. Understanding this is where the shift happens. The Craftsman moves from stock-picking based on opinion, to rule-building based on evidence.
These three characteristics, which we call QVM, are measurable for every share. And when something can be measured, then rules, criteria and checklists can be built on them. They can be the basis of a sound, repeatable process.
Even Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett's partner, and one of the wealthiest stock market researchers that ever lived once said: 'No wise pilot, no matter how great his talent and experience, fails to use his checklist.'
Because what sets the best investors apart isn't how much they know about their investments – it's how they turn their knowledge of what really works into a repeatable process.
What's next?
This first article is really about recognising the journey that many of us investors go on – from gambler to follower to researcher to craftsman.
In the next article of this four-article series, I'll show you how to start turning the QVM return drivers into practical rules you can apply to improve your investing.
This article is part of Stockopedia's The Smart Money Playbook series. As a special offer This is Money readers can get 25 per cent off a Stockopedia membership.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
10 hours ago
- The Guardian
‘We got a lot of honks in solidarity': anti-Musk protests ripple at LA's Tesla Diner
Elon Musk's 'retro-futuristic' Tesla Diner in Hollywood has become a new flashpoint for the 'Tesla Takedown' movement, with dozens of protesters picketing the diner last weekend alongside inflatable tube figures of Musk performing a Nazi salute. The viral popularity of the new diner, which is surrounded by 80 Tesla charging stations and two giant movie screens, has sparked out-the-door lines, massive traffic jams, and two angry protests, all within its first week of operation. Organizers say they are protesting against what they see as the Tesla CEO's corrosive effect on US democracy, as well as the human cost of the sweeping government cuts he spearheaded while working within the Trump administration earlier this year. For months, protesters who oppose the billionaire's political power have demonstrated outside of Tesla showrooms across the US and the world, hoping that by applying pressure to Tesla, a publicly-traded company, the Tesla Takedown movement can have an impact on Musk's behavior. 'Musk thought [the diner] would be good for him, but it's actually great for anti-Tesla protesters as well, to give us increased visibility,' said Joel Lava, who has been organizing weekly Tesla Takedown protests outside a Tesla service station in Burbank, California. Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Though Musk has officially left his role within the Trump administration, and has since publicly feuded with the president, the devastating effects of his so-called 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) live on, Lava said. Lava cited recent reports that the US had thrown away nearly 500 metric tons of emergency food aid this spring, in the wake of Doge's dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Global health officials have also said Musk's budget-cutting efforts have thrown global HIV prevention efforts, including the rollout of a new 'miracle' drug, into chaos. There are hometown considerations, as well, Lava added: Musk has a history of anti-trans comments, and the diner is right on the border of West Hollywood, one of LA's historic LGBTQ+ neighborhoods. Protesters outside the Hollywood diner last weekend carried signs reading 'Fuck Nazi Billionaires' and 'Boycott Tesla'. 'We WILL NOT REST until the world has internalized the truth that TESLA FUNDS FASCISM,' organizers wrote in a post advertising the demonstrations, which one Los Angeles organizer estimated attracted about 100 people on Saturday, and about 85 on Sunday. A Los Angeles police spokesperson described the two demonstrations in Hollywood as 'peaceful protests'. Social media video of the diner demonstrations showed a few apparent Musk supporters yelling at protesters, including one young man caught on video describing himself as 'a proud fascist'. Dave, a Los Angeles-based Tesla Takedown organizer, said a few drivers of newer Teslas and Cybertrucks around the diner had screamed at the protesters, and 'there were some people who were doing the Sieg Heil [salute]'. At least one Cybertruck driver had gotten out of his vehicle to confront protesters, Dave said. The organizer asked not to be identified by his full name because he feared that protesting against Musk might affect his employment opportunities. Other Tesla fans waiting in line outside the diner simply seemed confused by the political rhetoric, Dave said, and other people driving by the diner were audibly supportive. 'We got a lot of honks and fist-pumps in solidarity, and many of those were even from Tesla drivers themselves – especially the people driving the older models of Teslas,' he said. Since it opened at 4.20pm last Monday, the diner has attracted Musk fans from across southern California, as well as curious tourists. At about midday on Wednesday last week, many fans in line had brought children with them, and some said that their kids were especially excited to see Musk's diner, which they had heard about on TikTok or YouTube. One Tesla Diner customer told the LA Public Press on Saturday that the protesters' comparisons of Musk to a Nazi did not make sense to him. 'If he's a fascist, who has he killed?' the man asked. 'Nazis kill people, from what I understand.' Dave, the Tesla Takedown organizer, said the demonstrators were considering more protests outside the diner, but that the group has already received at least one social media threat that they will be assaulted if they protest again next weekend. Asked about those threatening social media posts, which came from an anonymous pro-Musk Bluesky account, an LAPD spokesperson said the department was not currently aware of 'any specific threat'. For Angelenos who live in the neighborhood surrounding Musk's new diner, its sudden popularity has sparked a litany of complaints. Local news outlets have reported that neighborhood residents have complained of the chaos and traffic it has brought to the neighborhood, including 'insane gridlock from 1pm to 1 am', and concerns about the giant movie screens blocking the view from nearby apartments. 'If you can send people to Mars, you should be able to figure out how to make this doable for residents,' one resident told ABC7 News.


Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Daily Mail
From child star to billionaire: Hollywood's richest actress is unrecognizable on rare outing
An actress who shot to fame in the 1980s but has since receded from the public eye and become a billionaire was unrecognizable when she was spotted this week. In 1989, she married a banker who over the course of the following decade forged a career in private equity and rose to become a major tycoon. He now boasts an estimated net worth of more than $14 billion and is the co-owner, with his wife, of a sports team famous around the world. Meanwhile she has not had a blockbuster movie in decades and her last regular TV role ended in 2014, but she is still reported to be the richest actress in the world. She cut a stylish figure at 59 when she was spotted this week having lunch at a private members' club beloved by the Hollywood power elite. Can you guess who she is? She is Jami Gertz, who acted in 1980s classics like The Lost Boys and Sixteen Candles and is now married to business mogul Tony Ressler. When she was seen out to lunch this week, Jami was the image of understated glamour in a powder blouse blouse, white trousers and matching loafers. Accessorizing with a scarlet handbag and a set of sunglasses, she brought along a blue wrap in case of a drop in temperatures. Her venue of choice was the San Vicente Bungalows, an exclusive private members club in West Hollywood known for a glittering celebrity clientele thought to include Leonardo DiCaprio, Justin Bieber, Steven Spielberg and even Elon Musk. Jami began her career as a child actress before landing her breakthrough at 21 in the 1987 addiction drama Less than Zero with Robert Downey, Jr. and Andrew McCarthy. That year, she cemented her position as an enduring cult star of the decade by playing one half of a vampire couple with Kiefer Sutherland in The Lost Boys, amid a cast that included Corey Feldman and Corey Haim. In 1989 she married her husband, who at that time worked at the investment bank Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., which went bankrupt the next year after becoming enmeshed in insider trading and improprieties in the junk bond market. Jami continued acting through the 1990s, landing what turned out to be her final movie to emerge as a major box office success - the 1996 thriller Twister with Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt. She is Jami Gertz, who acted in 1980s classics like The Lost Boys and Sixteen Candles and is now married to business mogul Tony Ressler That was the decade her husband rose to become a giant in private equity, founding Apollo Global Management and then Ares Management. Jami starred on the family sitcom Still Standing from 2002 to 2006 and did guest appearances on shows including ER, Entourage, Ally McBeal and Modern Family. Although Jami's onscreen career has fizzled in recent years - her last major TV role was on a sitcom about aliens called The Neighbors that ended in 2014 - she hit the headlines this year when claims about her wealth went viral. Her husband Tony Ressler wound up on the annual list at Forbes, which currently credits him with a staggering net worth of $14.2 billion. Meanwhile Jami has been pegged as having a whopping $12 billion to her own name, according to Celebrity Net Worth, in an estimate that set tongues wagging online. Jami and Tony are the co-owners of the NBA team the Atlanta Hawks, which he acquired in 2015 alongside former basketball player Grant Hill. They bid on the team after the previous owner sold his stake amid a scandal over a controversial email about how 'the black crowd scared away the whites and there are simply not enough affluent black fans to build a significant season ticket base.' Now, alongside her co-ownership of the Hawks, Jami still occasionally acts, with her last project being a 2022 small black comedy called I Want You Back starring Jenny Slate, Charlie Day, Gina Rodriguez and Scott Eastwood. 'Everyone thinks I married a rich guy,' she remarked in 2018. 'But I made more money - way more money - than Tony when I met him. I paid for our first house. I paid for our first vacation. I married him because I fell in love with him.' Jami recalled that when she met Tony in the 1980s, he was just 'a nice guy with a job. Which is what any Jewish girl from Glenview would want. It would have been nice if it was a doctor or a lawyer, but a banker was OK, too,' via The Hollywood Reporter.


Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Daily Mail
The simple share-picking strategy that has 'beaten every UK fund' over a decade: ED CROFT
If you open an account using links which have an asterisk, This is Money will earn an affiliate commission. We do not allow this to affect our editorial independence. In the third part of our series on how to pick shares, Ed Croft, the founder and chief executive of Stockopedia, looks at how a simple rules-based approach that he has dubbed the no admin portfolio system, has delivered returns that top all UK companies funds over the past decade. He explains the three mistakes all investors can make and the solutions and runs through the rules investors can put in place to easily select winning stocks. Most of us have been there. Picked some great stocks with conviction. Run our winners. Been delighted with the gains. Only to see those gains drain away. It hurts, it's galling and you are left wondering where you went wrong. Worse than that, by the time it happens you may have started counting on those gains as part of your future planning. How are you going to pay for that big ticket item - that home purchase, a child's education, or that early retirement? It's very real. In this piece, I'll introduce the three mistakes we can all make, and the three solutions. But first, a personal tale… For me, my big lesson came in the global financial crisis. I was young enough to be reckless, but old enough to have known better. I had a silly amount of my capital riding on two big picks. Both were AIM listed stocks. One was called Renesola (SOLA) - a solar energy company that was absolutely smashing it on sales growth. The other was RC Group (RCG) - a biometrics company. I'm sure some of you remember these stocks. I'd bought really well. And I'd bought more as they rose. At their peak, I had 50 per cent of my portfolio in RCG, and probably 30 per cent in SOLA. They really were motoring - they had both already tripled. I couldn't have been more confident. It was 2007… what could possibly have gone wrong? As I explain below, lots did. The three investing mistakes we make There's an eye-opening academic research paper by Barber and Odean titled 'The Behaviour of Individual Investors'. When I first read it I was gobsmacked. It was a mirror of every mistake I'd ever made, and hugely influential in shaping my future mindset. I've thought long and hard about their findings and grouped them into three themes: 1. We suffer 'perverse stock selection' That quoted phrase is their words. We often pick risky stocks for the wrong reasons. We often talk about the perils of story stocks at Stockopedia. Stories are how the human mind makes sense of the world, but projecting a Hollywood ending onto a share is not rational. Whether we're chasing headlines, themes we know a lot about or jumping on a bandwagon so not to miss out. We seem to have a 'taste for stocks with lottery-like payoffs'. But lottery tickets have negative returns, 2. We under-diversify We buy a share and get to know the theme. The price goes in the right direction, and we buy more. We buy another benefiting from the same theme. One highlight from the paper showed that 'on average investors hold only four stocks' which tend to be 'highly correlated' - i.e. too few stocks in too few sectors. I ended up in 2007 with a portfolio 80 per cent in Chinese AIM stocks. Hindsight is wonderful isn't it. 3. We buy and sell recklessly We're human. We're prone to want to do something. This action bias might have helped when we were chased by lions, but in volatile markets it's an expensive tendency. It's so easy to buy and sell these days. A trade is just a thumb press away. But ease of trading does not a disciplined investor make. 20 per cent of investors turn over their portfolio almost three times per year - which is not only hugely costly in terms of transaction and tax costs, but can't be good for mental health. Beyond this, we're terribly prone to hanging onto our losers, and snatching at profits. And even worse, we tend to pull all our capital out of the market at lows, and reinvest at highs. The framework that solves the problems I'm sure we can all recognise some of these behaviours in our own habits. But as John Templeton once said 'If you want to have a better performance than the crowd, you must do something differently from the crowd'. So in this vein, I propose three dimensions of intelligent investing that can guarantee you invest contrary to the three mistakes that almost all investors make. 1. Invest in stocks exposed to proven return drivers. ● The simple solution to 'perverse stock selection'. ● Buy good (quality), inexpensive (value), rising (momentum) shares. ● These kinds of shares are highlighted by the Stockopedia StockRanks - which score every share for their quality, value and momentum. These kinds of shares are remarkably ignored by the crowd, but have consistently outperformed over the last decade. 2. Ensure you have enough diversity in your portfolio construction ● In ten years of tracking portfolios the highest probability shares, only 7 per cent are likely to double in a single year. So we don't diversify just to reduce risk, we diversify to maximise our chance of owning a big winner. These are the stocks that can make a real difference to your portfolio. ● Own at least 14 stocks to give yourself a better chance of holding a mult-bagger. ● Own stocks across at least six (out of 10) sectors, and make sure you own both cyclicals and defensives. Think of your portfolio like a football team - you need strikers and defenders. And be careful going all-in on a favourite theme - we are not so smart! ● Avoid huge positions. Start with equal weights. 3. Pre-commit to buy and sell discipline ● Have a plan for every share purchase - a plan actively helps you avoid reactive over-trading and snatching at profits. This includes having a sell plan. Whether that sell plan is based on time (e.g. after a one year holding period), thresholds (e.g. when value is realised, or the StockRank falls below a certain level), or events (e.g. selling immediately on a profit warning). ● Only hold for the long term the highest quality securities. Be extremely wary of just holding because you've grown familiar with the story. The numbers must back it up. As Jim Slater would say, 'be first in the line of disappointed enthusiasts' if something goes wrong. ● Don't hang onto your losers - have a bias to selling them (using a stop loss, or after a fixed time), or average down (but only if you have genuine insight - which you probably don't). Doing nothing creates opportunity cost, and can turn a small loss into a big one. The consistent application of simple rules is extraordinarily powerful. As Van K Tharp once said, 'If you don't have rules, everything you do is a mistake'. Putting the rules to work At Stockopedia, we've run a model portfolio based on these principles for a decade. It's an equal weighted 20-stock portfolio, populated with the highest quality, value and momentum stocks, refreshed once per year. There's no stock picking. It's a simple rules-based approach that works. Known as the 'NAPS' Portfolio - as it's a 'no admin portfolio system' - the portfolio has beaten every single fund manager in the UK over the decade to 2025. The NAPS portfolio has outperformed all funds in the IA UK All Companies sector If you'd like to apply similar systematic principles to your own portfolio and learn more about how the NAPS process works, you can check out our latest webinar below. Watch now to discover the simple rules behind a market-beating strategy. This article is part of Stockopedia's The Smart Money Playbook series. As a special offer, This is Money readers can get 25 per cent off a Stockopedia membership.