I just read through this thread with a bit of amusement. I instantly thought this was Increasenow reincarnated.
Look, itâs already been said, but Iâll say it a different way. Youâre going about this thing all wrong. Let me give you an example.
Iâm currently in a âbiggest loserâ competition with a bunch of friends. I donât really need to lose that much weight, but Iâm a highly competitive person and I enjoy the fight. Two weeks ago, when the contest started, I weighed 221 lbs (Iâm 6â2â). I now weigh 209, and Iâve got 10 more weeks to go. Before plopping down my money and joining the contest, I thought about the other participants, how much weight they had to lose, how motivated and disciplined they are, and how much weight I could potentially lose. I figure I can get down to 190, which will be pretty lean for my body type, but itâs realistic (I was close to that weight about 3 years ago). That would mean Iâd have to average a weight loss of 2.5 pounds a week, which means I would have to burn around 1000 calories more than I consume each week. I might be able to get to 185, but it would be a stretch and I donât think I could maintain that weight very long. If I get to 190, that would be a 14% loss. After thinking about the other participants, I concluded that itâs highly unlikely that anyone else has the discipline (or track record) to lose more than 14% of their weight, so I came to the conclusion that not only is it possible for me to win, but I have a very high chance of winning. Therefore, I joined the competition and I am dieting and exercising like a madman, and I am currently in first place.
That is an example of how logic can applied to decide whether a lofty goal is achievable. I was able to apply the logic because I:
1. Know the competition and their discipline levels
2. Know my body type and weight loss history
3. Know how many calories have to be burned to lose a pound of fat
All of these things are known, which allows me to make a calculation and determine if winning the competition is possible.
As a would-be trader, you have knowledge of ânothing-! Nothing! You have no mechanism for calculating the odds, because the odds are not available. There is no data to support a conclusion. You donât even have any personal experience to leverage. Thus, to try and determine whether 1 ES point a day is possible is a nonsense question. Itâs irrelevant and meaningless. You cannot approach trading in the same manner as weight loss, or going to college, or learning to fly a plane, or playing the guitar, or climbing the corporate ladder, or any other activity youâve ever evaluated before attempting. The difference between trading and all those other activities is that those who have the information wonât give it to you, and even if they tried to give it to you, it wouldnât work, because your brain cannot process it. To become a trader, you have to completely rewire your brain through a long and painful process, you have to become someone different than you ever were, different then God made you. Human beings have natural instincts that make them lose money in the markets. Yes, you too have the same instincts. You have to become super-human in order to succeed. You cannot approach the markets in the same way that youâve approached everything else in your life.
The questions you should be asking yourself are:
- How much do I love the markets?
- How well do I handle high pressure situations?
- How capable am I of being 100% accountable to myself?
- How many years am I willing to shave off my life expectancy to achieve this goal?
- How much do I enjoy sitting in front of a computer screen all day?
- How much money am I willing to lose in order to learn the lessons that will rewire my brain?
- How much pain can I sustain on a daily basis without losing hope?
If you can answer these questions correctly, then you might have a chance of becoming a trader. IF you achieve any ounce of success in your endeavor, you will look back at this thread and realize you naïve currently look to everyone who knows what they are talking about.