After following this thread for a few days, I realized that a crucial point was missing in the whole debate. The 10,000 or whatever hrs rule was probably conjectured or studied for other professions and then transplanted to trading. It may have a certain degree of truth for trading, but far from the rule. Other professions, such as musicians and athletes, are more uniform in their training regiments and talent requirements. For example, only those exhibiting special talents in music and sports early in their lives are selected and subsequently put on standardized training by professionals. It’s thus relatively easy to study them and conclude their success requirements. Trading, on the other hand, is a very diverse activity. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of instruments to trade, plus almost an infinite number of time frames and strategies. To compound the complexity, the trader population is even more diverse depending on their talent, age, experience, personality and disposition, just to name a few. It is no wonder there will never be any definitive answer to how many hrs/how much effort it takes to become a successful trader. It can literally range from winning from the very beginning to never. So the pursuit (and debate) of such a thing is completely futile.
The path to being an expert trader might be described as: Stage 1) Unprofitable/break even trader (has no trading edge(s) ) Stage 2) Weak profitable trader (trades with a weak but profitable edge, large drawdowns) Stage 3) Expert trader (trades with good trading edges, small drawdowns) I would guess i spent 2000 hours in stage 1) However i spent a hell of long time in stage 2), made worse by the fact in 2008&2009 i printed money even with a weak edge. I would say i spent 10 years at stage 2). Thing is you can easily delude yourself during stage 2, thinking your are in fact in stage 3, and the market can often give you large profits during the winning periods of a weak edge and this fools you into thinking you have a much better edge than you have in reality. I would say i have been at level 3 for the last two years, but maybe i am still deluding myself.
With proper risk management and position sizing, large drawdowns should not occur post stage 1, assuming the trader has mastered the basic trading skills going into stage 2.
We're all just essentially...basically, technically gambling. -- But the key to this is there are varying degrees, or skills, of it , Some people trade like a hunter who is drunk and just randomly dropped in a safari spot and starts shooting. While others maybe may hide behind a rock and wait for something to cross its path. While others may study their prey type, and position ideally for it with the right ammo and weapon, mindset, tactics and etc misc. I personally like to think my edge/skill in predicting/managing/trading the daily broad market, Dow/Spy chart, is excellent. I can time its few macro move(s).
Quote: By large drawdown i mean relative to risk taken. Not necessarily in absolute terms. I see. Guess the magnitude of drawdowns is related to weak/strong edge in stage 2/3?
A billion hands have virtually touched a computer mouse. But how many of those hands can make their computer magically turn into an ATM money machine? Doing so definitely requires skills. Many many have tried and attempted to do so, and many many have failed.