You know what trading success is. Everyone does. It is making money. Now, how much is subjective, but losing money is not success in trading.
Now that is crap. There a degrees of success in normal jobs, but success is ALWAYS measured by being employable and making money. We are talking normal professions here, not something nebulous like parenting or the priesthood. If you are a successful engineer, you are employable.
How do you tell if you have a good teacher at elementary and high school level? They are unionized and get paid by seniority. Everyone at one time or another has had a poor teacher.
My definition of a success in a profession is being gainfully employed. My definition of success in trading is making the amount of money you are striving to make. Has nothing to do with anything else. I was gainfully employed as a software engineer and made, imo, good money. You might not have thought of my skills the same way my employer did, but that is not the point.
I'm not sure what this current convo is about, but... Bernie Madoff was "gainfully employed". Russell Wassendorf was "gainfully employed". Insert your own favorite flim-flam con persons here. "gainfully employed" is not valid criteria to reckon "success". Money as a standalone is not valid criteria either. There are "gainfully employed" hucksters making big money in most professions, "trading" and finance are not an exception.
This convo started because I mentioned I was a successful engineer and software developer and that I suck at day trading. My criteria of success was that I made money at my professions and lost money at trading. The conclusion was that one could be successful at one profession and not at another. It then descended into a discussion of what success means. That discussion has nothing to do with my original post. I guess this is what happens on ET.
well i can tell you trading is ridiculously easy........ once you get it i used to only lose money....now i dont but it took me a decade determination.....winners do not quit..........