Namath's definition is incomplete. Any correct definition of "gambling" includes "probability of win/loss", not just risk of loss. (Namath went to 'Bama. How smart can he be?)
My real live frequent experience: I'll sometimes hit a very strong brief profitable run then give some back. I'll get whacked hard other times and if living through the pain I'll make it back quickly. So, I'll have sometimes 2-3 weeks of losses (did so very recently) and then it comes gushing back in. So, the point being, it is hard to control profits or losses for me because trading is always about give and take, profit follows losses & vice versa continually.
Years ago I thought "proper trading par" to be 20%/year. I traded mutual funds and a timing service for clients averaging 41% compounded, for 18 years. (I often heard, "that can't be real", "that can't be possible"). I had a software package where I had to ask the writers to expand certain fields because the program wouldn't graph properly.... They said, "never heard of such a thing". Their programmed field maximum allowed for "only" about 8,000% within their time limits. All of that was before there were leveraged and inverse funds/ETFs... all done with "Price TA", sector rotation and Relative Strength Analysis. Now days we've got leveraged choices up the wazoo... so I can't quantify anything about "volatility" and expected "per annum" returns.
That you have good strings of success is a good thing. Worth your while to figure it out more so that you don't have bad strings. It's doable. Believe me.
You can get to the point where you have 60%-ish win rate with always 3:1+ profit potential. That is, you make the plays where you can imagine/see where you "might make 3:1 your risk". Many will break down before that, but some will go for much bigger gains. THAT's how you're supposed to be playing the game. And with those odds you can't possibly lose unless you get brain lock.