Depends on what you're trying to learn. If you're trying to learn how to trade price, yes. If you're trying to learn to trade indicators, candlesticks, patterns and so forth and have wasted time on videos and courses and blogs and trading rooms and chat rooms and any of the tens of thousands of trading books that have been generated over the past twenty years, then it could take years, if ever.
There is an enormous amount of money to be made by selling picks and shovels to newcomers. And even oldcomers. But all one needs is access to a chart and the ability to observe it, formulate hypotheses on the reasons for its movements, and devise tentative rules for entry, management, and exit. Dow, Wyckoff, Livermore, Baruch, Schabacker and so forth didn't learn what they learned by hanging out in chat rooms or reading what somebody said about the market; they studied what the market said about itself.
The vast majority of traders spend years learning what not to do, during which time new and unsuccessful traders become old and unsuccessful traders. And the longer they waste their time on irrelevancies, the less likely they will be successful because of all the "information" they have to unlearn.
So, going back to your story, no, six months is not realistic. But you didn't begin by studying the market. The sooner you had begun to study the market, the sooner you would have been able to profit from your study. And this is the case for most if not all who spend years trying to squeeze money out of the market: they never study the market itself. In their cases, six years is not realistic. Nor ten. Nor fifteen or twenty. But none of that is the market's fault. Nor is it the market's problem. But if one understands the scientific method and applies it to price movement, which is what the market is all about, then, yes, six months is more than adequate.
Db
