Ways to be a successful Trader

Solar you are right. The simple way to know if you are a successful trader is by looking at the what profit you made at the end of the day.

Though I'm trying to learn about the characteristics that help towards achieving this goal of making money in the financial world of trading.

So far I have only about 10 responses to the survey. Anyone else want to tell me, please try this survey:
http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/1752699/Key-Success-Factors-of-Trading
 
Last edited:
That profit should however be consistent.

Anyone can put £1000 per point on the Dow and sell it 1 point up, and hold the position in a massive loss until that 1 point profit. It doesn't take a trader.
 
In my opinion it isn't really a case of consistency. Define consistency in the market!!!! If consistency is defining a rule set and following it then sure but that itself isn't guaranteed to make you any richer. I guess you could compare it to driving a car. Anyone can learn how to operate a car but only experience of driving in all traffic conditions can make you a good driver. You need to learn how to anticipate for this skill is where a line is drawn between people that think following a process underpins success and those that view process as an autopilot that comes second to anticipation of reaction.
 
A successful trader is, in my opinion, someone whose profits are consistently (that really depends on one's individual definition of "consistently" though) more than their losses.
 
A successful trader is, in my opinion, someone whose profits are consistently (that really depends on one's individual definition of "consistently" though) more than their losses.

What's really interesting about this thread is that it's raised the issue of what exactly 'success' is? After all, one man's 'success' is another's idea of lackadaisicalness (...no prizes for guessing that - part of one member's profits were used to buy the latest edition of Chambers!)

Strictly speaking, to be in profit by 1 to 2 pence for each year of three consecutive years meets the criteria specified above. So I'll now try (as I'm much inspired, this weekend morning, so to do) and arrive at a definition of trading success which most of us, with common-sense, would agree on:

'Success' might mean the ability to cover financially, all of one's needs and most of one's wants, while still leaving enough funds spare to meet with most potential future eventualities.

Hmmm: Much as I like that definition, it's admittedly just too constrictive. After all, very few would call themselves 'successful' if judged solely on that high standard!

OTOH, isn't it very much the case that we are (or at least - most of us are) technically 'successful', without needing to do more than 'the basics of life', insofar as we (or again - most of us) won the lottery of life, in simply being born in a first world nation, to reasonably self sufficient parents?

Nahh - that definition sidesteps the ambition, drive and passion which we all put into the art of trying to become successful.

So, George Clooney is successful. He entered a career where the usual reality is that most never stop waiting upon tables for a living, and yet still somehow became richer than God's second cousin. And, of course, it's no less likely that he's just as handsome for a large while in his life, too.

But what about JJ, the daytrader? He made enough money last year (and for the second year running) to feed everyone in his family, pay all the bills and perhaps most impressively, he took his family to the Seychelles, where they all stayed in some inexpensive, beach huts, which... eh... partially overlook a five star resort?

Is JJ successful at trading? Yes... ahem... and no.

So, how about a simple, yet figurative definition of 'success' - one which captures the very essence of what it means to be 'successful'?

'Success' means never having to wonder where, or when, your next pound/paycheck is coming from.

Yes. Yes Yes!!! I like this definition best, as it sums up the feeling at the very core of being successful - that lack of needing to worry about the material matters in life!

But just before I go, how about this?

To be successful is to be envied by more of your peers, than you yourself envy.

Hmmm, your Peakoil doth greatly like that one too...

Enjoy, folks!
 
Last edited:
Deposit funds in trading account.

Do not trade.

Wait 6 months.

Extract funds from trading account.

You have a better performance than 98% of your contemporaries who started the same time as you.
 
Hmmmm, and with a sigh: "'If you don't lose money, you are a successful trader'" peakoil's 'conjugal being' used to add "...amounts to nonsense, dear husband, most particularly on those occasions when you've not even made enough money to cover your basic costs of living, the bills we have to pay, and all the time you've put in."

Ouch. Just as well then, that such was put to 'a certain someone', in times past :)

Meanwhile... ain't the following truism far more likely to pass the venerable young wive's test?

"If you don't lose money, you are in reality, and at best, a 'break-even' trader."​

Or to put it, with more of an optimistic spin:

"If you don't lose money, you are more likely than not, on the road to becoming a successful trader."​

@ Sigma-D - LOL but by the same reasoning, wouldn't you also be beating (a more realistic) 4/5 people, by simply avoiding altogether, the very trouble of opening *any* trading account, what with all the form filling, scanning, faxing in recent bills & driving licences kerfuffle, and moreover just leaving that self same money, where it nests most comfortably: in an interest paying non-trading account?

;-)
 
Last edited:
@ Sigma-D - LOL but by the same reasoning, wouldn't you also be beating (a more realistic) 4/5 people, by simply avoiding altogether, the very trouble of opening *any* trading account, what with all the form filling, scanning, faxing in recent bills & driving licences kerfuffle, and moreover just leaving that self same money, where it nests most comfortably: in an interest paying non-trading account?
98% is realistic. Thread elsewhere on here underlines that statistic.

And yes, easier and more sensible to simply not open a treading account. But that would not fulfill the requirement of having a valid response to the title of this thread. With a treading account you are de facto a Trader. You don't have to execute any trades though. Bit like a doctor gaining his/her qualifications but never seeing a patient. They're still a doctor.

Not opening a trading account disqualifies you from calling yourself a trader.
 
Well then... if you're going to say "not opening a trading account disqualifies you from calling yourself a trader", how exactly does opening a trading account and then closing it after doing nothing for six months, qualify you?

+ Interested in your expalantion.;-)

98% lose is, in case you're not joking, of course, total nonsense. CF: the Money advice service etc. etc.
 
Well then... if you're going to say "not opening a trading account disqualifies you from calling yourself a trader", how exactly does opening a trading account and then closing it after doing nothing for six months, qualify you?

+ Interested in your expalantion.;-)
I'll use the same explanation I used in my earlier post on how qualifying as a doctor but not seeing any patients still entitles you to call yourself a doctor.

98% lose is, in case you're not joking, of course, total nonsense. CF: the Money advice service etc. etc.
It would be total nonsense if there weren't any empirical studies confirming the data I provided. It's on this site somewhere, can't remember where. If you're a keen student, you'll find it. I don't need to look again as I know I've already read the post and the link to the study mentioned.
 
Aha. Well you might disagree, but methinks it's a little disrespectful of you, to members of the medical profession, to make such an analogy between someone who opens a trading account and does nothing with it but close it a little later, whom *you* might still call a "trader", and a doctor who in reality must still do an incredible amount of studying for, and passing of, exams every single year for between 6 and 8 years (depending on where said doctor studies). That's the sole reason a doctor is entitled to call him or herself a doctor, in other words - only because of year after year, after year of putting in long hours of hard work, and it has nothing to do with the fact that he or she can choose to see no patients afterwards. Your analogy seems to suggest that a doctor need to nothing, not even see patients, just as a 'trader' who opens a trading account (in your world) might also do nothing and still pass himself off as a "trader". That analogy is, if not disrespectful, absolutely hilarious. But alas, methinks further that you won't find too many who agree with you. So it is ever so kindly suggested that your above analogy is likely no more meaningful than your "98% lose statistic", if only because... "it's on this site somewhere". Might it cross your mind, in other words, that *even if* it's "on this site somewhere", the person who quoted it, could well have plucked such an unsubstantiated figure directly from the deepest realms of his own imagination? Enjoy.
 
Last edited:
So is a 401k participant who exchanges between mutual funds a trader? Are they only a trader if they open a brokerage portion? Is it only trading if its speculative?

One I have always loved in university is the professors who insist you call them Dr. due to their PhD. It makes me feel bad for real Dr's.
 
@ Costakapo:


"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Act II, Scene II - R&J​
 
Last edited:
Top