The study sampled new traders. It can conclude nothing on all traders. Read it carefully by yourself.
Here it's even in the abstract: "97% of them lost money, only 0.4% earned more than a bank teller (US$54 per day), and the top individual earned only US$310 per day with great risk (a standard deviation of US$2,560)." I rest my case
Yes, you have jobs like something bla,bla, all those gave you zero experiences as a trader. I says this because you talked like someone who knew very little about trading.
a profitable trader is already among the approximately 0.4%.what is so fucking hard for you to understand?
Lol. Let's agree to disagree. I am tired to debate with someone who can't read nor knows basic probability theory.
Do you believe a new trader's first year record can prove he can make consistent money? If you do, then it just tells that you have little trading experiences. Not only the study's conclusion on percentage of the traders who can't make a living on trading is wrong, the conclusion on percentage of traders who can make a living on trading is also wrong.
Not only market in different countries have different characteristics, the same market at different time has different characteristics. Even for different induces, one who can make consistent money on ES, can't do so on NQ.
Uh P&G makes diapers using a set of consistent parameters to repeat the process over and over again on machinery and random testing ensures the process is being replicated properly over and over again. So no they don't need to test every single one to make a statistical calculation about errors in the process. So your basic analysis proves how basic your intelligence is in statistics. I showed several times the flaw in the study but you choose to ignore it. Let me show it to you this way. I went every year to golf courses in the country and sampled all players who were trying golf for the first time only and excluded all others. Each year I only sampled new golfers and never included those who played the year before. I also did not follow up on any golfers tested the previous year. I examined who broke 100 on an 18 hole course in this first year and only 1% of those who played golf more than once broke 100. Therefore I concluded that breaking 100 in golf is impossible. Same bullshit analysis in the study cited. Here endeth the lesson.
The study ignored this factor completely by simply excluding all traders who traded more than a year. So according to this study it is impossible. To answer how long a sample size takes to become somewhat profitable (and that number will still be low due to human factor that prevents most from success) the study should have followed ALL of its sample set for maybe 5 years.