the "invisible exams" that a trader has to pass
Yeah, all very reasonable.
What I could add is this: my knowledge on brokers and instruments could benefit you, and your capability of being profitable could benefit me. Just because someone is not profitable, like me, it doesn't make them worthless. Even though to my own eyes I am worthless because the end result is losing money.
But I know it's not true at all. The reason is similar to the one I explain to people, when they say to me: "hey, you've been saying you'll make money for years, and you still haven't, so I don't believe you any more". Yes, they may have a point, apparently, but I'll tell you why they may not have a point.
If you want to become a doctor, you have a bunch of exams, that will require your studies to continue for almost 10 years. No one will come up to you on the sixth year and tell you "hey, you told me you were going to become a doctor 5 years, you still aren't, so I don't believe you ever will be one". Same for a lawyer, even a lawyer who keeps on failing the bar exam. No one will go to him and say "you'll never become a lawyer". In a sense I am like a lawyer who keeps on failing the bar exam. I know a lot of stuff, but I still don't know enough to pass that exam, the profitability exam. Who knows, maybe I don't have enough capital, maybe I don't have an edge, or maybe I am incapable of using the stoploss. I think these two are most likely the case: low capital which leads to poor money management, which leads to not being capable of using a stoploss (because I am losing so much that I can't take it psychologically). In this sense, spreadbetting could be the answer, as it allows good money management even if you have a low capital (via microlots and such).
You see, I should only risk 2% on each trade, and have a target profit of at least 4%, and try to have a majority of wins. That way I would really play it safely and probably I'd be profitable. We'll see. The chart game is helping a whole lot.
Anyway, to get back to my "invisible exams" analogy, I'd like to compare my endeavour to a more similar activity where you either succeed or fail, and do so all at once. I mean trading is like those places where you either succeed or fail, but don't gradually show your improvement, even if there is improvement. That's why we could speak of "invisible exams", that I have to pass before becoming profitable.
Let's look at some fields where it's "all or none" and others where it's gradual. Trading is definitely "profitable" or "unprofitable".
ALL OR NONE
1) Getting a girl (she wants you or she rejects you)
2) Getting a job (you're either hired or not hired)
3) Being a profitable trader (you either make money, or lose money)
4) Being alive (you're either alive or dead: it's very rarely debated)
GRADUAL
1) Being an employee at the bank (you could suck but still not be fired)
2) Building a house (it could suck but still stand and be called a "house")
3) Being a student (you could be anywhere from a poor student to an excellent student, but you still would be a student)
I cannot think of a good comparison right now, but I believe trading is an area where you could be working for years (like a nobel prize) without achieving anything and stay unprofitable, amassing amounts of knowledge, but if one ingredient is wrong, you won't make money, and then, all of a sudden, very quickly, you find the right ingredient and everything works out. It seems close to being a scientist who works on a formula or similar. His years of work could be worthless or he could win the nobel prize. He never knows when he starts. That's how trading seems to me. The secret of profitability still escapes me, but the day - if it happens - that i'll find out the missing ingredient(s), I am confident that I'll be extremely profitable, because I've been improving greatly in all other related fields.
Concretely, we could say that probably what I am missing is money management, but I have become pretty good at accuracy. I know how the markets move, but I don't know how to exploit my predictions. That's how close I can get to explaining my problem. If I could explain it any better, it wouldn't be a problem, because I'd be able to solve it.