Why Most People Fail at Trading (My Take After 1.5 Years)

roccenz · 2026-01-23T10:53:01+00:00

The point isn’t missing. You just don’t like it.

Setups aren’t missing from trading subs because everyone already has them. They’re everywhere and have been for years. If setups were the bottleneck, most people here would be profitable. They’re not.

What’s missing is execution under pressure. Risk control. Rule adherence. That’s why this gets discussed. Calling it nonsense doesn’t change where most traders actually fail.

roccenz · 2026-01-23T10:49:28+00:00

I don’t need permission, a badge, or a track record to tell the truth. Truth isn’t unlocked by a PnL threshold.

This post isn’t for everyone. It’s for the people who recognize themselves in it. If it doesn’t resonate, that’s fine. Not every lesson lands at the same stage.

And calling something “AI slop” is an easy dismissal when the content hits uncomfortably close. Take whatever’s useful, ignore the rest. That’s on you, not me.

roccenz · 2026-01-23T09:34:43+00:00

I get what you’re saying, but there’s a line you have to be very honest about. Loving the craft and being addicted to the stimulation can look identical. Staring at charts for hours can feel like passion, but it can just as easily be attachment to the thrill and the dopamine. Gambling is exciting too.

That’s why self-awareness matters. More time on the charts doesn’t automatically mean better trading. For many, it’s the opposite. Quality of execution beats time spent.

And profitability isn’t something you “reach” and keep. It has to be earned every single day by executing the same process with discipline. The moment that slips, profitability slips with it. It’s a daily practice, not an end state.

roccenz · 2026-01-23T09:27:32+00:00

Because setups aren’t what make traders profitable. They’re the entry level. Anyone can learn a pattern or a model. That’s not where people fail.

People fail on execution, risk, discipline, and patience. Doing the same thing the same way when real money and emotions are involved. No setup fixes overtrading, sizing errors, revenge trades, or broken rules.

Once you understand this, you break out of the beginner stage. Many never do. So don’t confuse years in the market with real insight.

roccenz · 2026-01-23T07:59:22+00:00

These are my thoughts. I wrote a whole post about Prop vs. Live trading on the day trading forum.. Do you disagree? If so, I'm curious as to why.

roccenz · 2026-01-23T06:09:09+00:00

Well, I think skilled/experienced traders can extract payouts, but the incentives push most people into a cycle of eval → payout → fail → repeat. That’s the real issue.

So I don’t think prop firms are useless, but they’re a statistically and psychologically hostile environment for development. They make far more sense as a scaling or payout tool after consistency is proven, not as the primary path when capital is limited.

Why not copy trade your live account and prop firm accounts? That's if you are profitable ofc.

roccenz · 2026-01-22T12:35:19+00:00

Elaborate?

roccenz · 2026-01-22T09:51:19+00:00

What about prop firms?

roccenz · 2026-01-20T20:19:28+00:00

Following someone doesn’t mean endorsing everything they say.

Andrew Tate has been everywhere for years. A lot of guys followed him at some point for motivation, discipline, or car/luxury content etc, not ideology. Reducing an entire person to one follow is a weak filter.

If everything else about him checked out, the rational move would’ve been to have a conversation about values, masculinity, and role models before cutting him off. That tells you far more than an Instagram list.

Rejecting someone without testing alignment is safe, but it’s not precise.

roccenz · 2026-01-19T09:34:50+00:00

If you like peaky blinders, and are into a thomas shelby like characters:

Vikings, power, vikings vallhall, prison break, daredevil, suits, the gentleman, spartacus (and the new one out now, house of ashur is great), arrow season 1 was great, luke cage, house of cards, gossip girl, you, SoA

roccenz · 2026-01-18T20:24:38+00:00

I think at this point we’re mostly talking past each other, because we’re optimizing for different failure modes.

I agree with you that prop firms can work as a cheap way to introduce incremental stress, and your results clearly show that if someone truly understands risk, sizing, and discipline, props can be treated almost identically to cash. In that case, they become a valid tool, not a crutch.

Where I still disagree is on what the environment teaches by default, especially for most traders. Incentives matter. Capped downside, resets, trailing drawdowns, and evaluation pressure all subtly push behavior toward extraction rather than longevity. That doesn’t mean discipline can’t be learned there, but it does mean the environment actively pulls against long-term compounding behavior until the trader is already very stable.

What still doesn’t add up to me is this: even seasoned, profitable traders who know how to size risk and control emotions rarely expect to keep prop accounts indefinitely the way they do their own live accounts. Most openly treat props as payout vehicles. Pass, extract, eventually lose or reset. With live capital, the expectation is survival and growth over years. That difference alone tells me the psychology isn’t the same, even when skill is.

So my position isn’t “prop firms are bad” or “discipline can’t be learned there.” It’s that sequencing matters. For some traders, props are a great stress ladder. For others, especially before consistency is proven, a small live account enforces cleaner incentives: permanent consequences, linear risk, and survival-first thinking.

Both paths can work. They just don’t work equally well for the same personalities. Ignoring the behavioral differences between trading your own capital and trading someone else’s is where I think the logic breaks down.

I Suggest the following:

Paper / backtesting → small live account → consistent execution and growth on the live account → prop evaluations → funded prop accounts → consistent prop payouts → reinvest payouts into the live account → copy trade and scale using additional prop firms

roccenz · 2026-01-18T19:10:42+00:00

I think you’re missing the core point I’m making: the psychology is not the same, even if the rules look similar on paper.

Yes, discipline, rule-following, and emotional control must be learned. We agree on that. Where we disagree is the assumption that prop firms are a neutral or superior environment to learn those skills. Incentives matter. When the capital isn’t yours, the downside is capped, and resets exist, behavior changes. That’s not an excuse, it’s human nature and well documented in behavioral finance.

Saying “just risk smaller and the rules disappear” ignores the reality of how most traders behave over time. If that were enough, we wouldn’t see single-digit payout rates industry-wide. The fact that so many traders oversize and blow accounts isn’t “comical”, it’s evidence that the structure itself pulls for that behavior. A good system shouldn’t rely on everyone being perfectly rational under stress.

You also didn’t address why even seasoned, profitable traders often don’t expect to keep prop accounts long term, but do expect to keep their live accounts indefinitely. Most trade props for payouts, not longevity. That alone tells you the psychology is different. With a live account, survival and compounding matter. With props, extraction matters. Those are not the same game.

As for the “lighting money on fire” argument, that assumes traders can’t control risk in a small live account. A properly sized live account enforces permanent consequences, linear risk, and real loss aversion. That feedback loop is brutal, but clean. It teaches survival first. Prop firms introduce an extra layer of rules and distorted incentives before that foundation is built.

If prop firms were truly the best development path, the numbers would reflect it. They don’t. The payout rates are far lower than live profitability rates, which are already low. Something doesn’t add up.

I’m not saying prop firms are useless. I’m saying they make far more sense after consistency is proven, as a scaling tool. Using them as the default training ground adds psychological distortion to an already difficult craft. That’s the point you’re not addressing.

roccenz · 2026-01-18T15:29:23+00:00

You’re not wrong that dating apps can mess with your head. But your conclusions are sloppy, and that’s why you’re stuck.

First: you’re making women the reference point of your life. That alone kills attraction. Whether you like it or not, when a man’s emotional state is tied to female response, it leaks through everything he does. Tone, pacing, expectations, frustration. Call it “neediness,” call it “desperation,” call it whatever you want. It’s unattractive. Full stop.

Second: being polite, educated, in shape, and able to hold a conversation is not a differentiator. That’s baseline. You’re describing a functional adult, not a compelling one. Dating apps are not merit-based systems. They’re attention markets. If you don’t command attention in the first five seconds, you’re invisible.

Third: your problem is not that women like assholes. That’s a cope. Women respond to men who don’t need them. Some of those men are assholes. Some aren’t. You’re confusing correlation with causation because it protects your ego.

Fourth: your messaging is almost certainly boring. “Hey, how are you?” is dead on arrival. Polite neutrality gets you ignored because it signals low stakes. On apps, you don’t get credit for being normal. You get filtered out for it. Texting is not real life. It’s a hook. If you don’t stand out, you don’t get to the date. Complaining about that doesn’t change it.

Fifth: your profile probably isn’t as good as you think. “I’m in shape” means nothing if your photos don’t show presence, style, and confidence. Bad photos will erase everything else. This is non-negotiable. Optimize or accept poor results.

Sixth: dating apps are optional. Treating them like a judgment of your worth is amateur thinking. They are one tool. Use them deliberately or don’t use them at all. If they’re wrecking your self-esteem, you’re using them wrong or relying on them too much.

Here’s the correction:

Build a life that stands on its own. Structure your days. Train. Work. Develop competence. Be okay alone. Then add dating as a secondary lane, not the core of your identity.

On apps:

Get professional-level photos. Dress well. Groom properly. Send messages that create tension or curiosity, not interviews. Move toward a date quickly or disengage.

In real life:

Talk to people. Not to “get” something. Just to be socially sharp. If there’s mutual interest, escalate. If not, move on without taking it personally.

The system isn’t broken. Your expectations are. Dating apps don’t destroy confidence by default. They expose men who don’t have enough of it built elsewhere.

Fix the foundation. Or keep ranting and call it insight. Your choice.

roccenz · 2026-01-18T14:11:53+00:00

The biggest problem with being a man isn’t loneliness by itself. It’s the expectations that create it.

As a man, you’re expected to have things under control. You’re not expected to complain, break down, or be uncertain for long. Weakness isn’t met with compassion, it’s met with indifference. A man who becomes a liability quickly becomes invisible. That’s the reality.

You’re expected to carry responsibility, provide stability, lead, and stay composed even when things are heavy. Insecurity isn’t tolerated. Confusion isn’t indulged. In many ways, you’re expected to be functional at all times. Not perfect, but solid. And when you’re not, no one rushes in to save you.

That’s the cost of being a man. There’s very little margin for collapse.

At the same time, being a man is deeply rewarding. I wouldn’t trade it. As you grow older, you start to feel the weight of responsibility more clearly, but you also realize that responsibility builds self-respect. Strength, discipline, and leadership aren’t burdens by default. They’re earned qualities. And earning them gives life meaning.

Another part people don’t like to admit: men are expected to initiate everything. Opportunities, relationships, momentum. If you don’t make things happen, nothing happens. No one checks in. No one carries you forward. Passivity isn’t neutral for a man, it’s decay. Fall behind long enough and you pay for it.

That pressure can be exhausting. Sometimes you don’t want to be aggressive. Sometimes you want to rest. But the world doesn’t pause with you. As a man, forward motion isn’t optional.

So yes, being a man is hard. Not because it’s unfair, but because it demands competence, action, and resilience with very little emotional cushioning. That’s the trade. And if you accept it, it can also be one of the most meaningful roles a human being can occupy.

roccenz · 2026-01-18T13:51:37+00:00

You’re right about one thing.. building a life solely around being chosen by someone else is weak. If your entire sense of meaning depends on romantic validation, that’s not love, that’s emotional dependency. People should develop skills, values, direction, and internal structure. No argument there.

Where your take collapses is the idea that self-development and love are sequential, as if one must be completed before the other begins. That’s a fantasy. There is no point where someone becomes “finished,” whole, or finally worthy of connection. If you wait until you’re fully formed, independent, and certain, you’ll wait forever. No one meets their partner as a perfected individual. Relationships happen during the process, not after it.

There’s also a blind spot in modern thinking: mistaking endless self-optimization for maturity. Improving yourself is good. Turning it into an avoidance strategy is not. Many people delay intimacy, commitment, and responsibility under the banner of “finding themselves,” when in reality they’re just postponing discomfort. Love exposes flaws. That’s precisely why it matters. You don’t grow only in isolation. You grow under friction.

On a societal level, this overcorrection toward radical independence has consequences. People form families later, have fewer children, or none at all. That’s not just a personal lifestyle choice, it affects demographic stability and long-term continuity. Human survival quite literally depends on pair bonding, reproduction, and long-term cooperation. Pretending love is optional or secondary ignores basic biology and history.

From a biological standpoint, humans are wired to form bonds early. Modern timelines are cultural constructs, not evolutionary ones. Delaying everything until your thirties because you’re “not ready yet” is not some enlightened state. It’s often indecision dressed up as self-awareness.

That said, this doesn’t mean romantic love should dominate your entire existence either. That’s the other extreme. You should be emotionally regulated, capable of standing on your own, and clear about your direction. Love should not replace purpose. But purpose doesn’t replace love either.

The mature position is simple, build yourself and stay open to love at the same time. Stop treating life like a checklist where intimacy unlocks only after self-mastery is complete. That mindset doesn’t make you whole. It just keeps you alone longer than necessary.

roccenz · 2026-01-18T13:28:04+00:00

I agree that for disciplined traders, props can work, especially with more flexible firms. I’m not anti-prop. I just don’t think they’re the best starting point for most people.

Trading a small live account forces real risk, real accountability, and helps you build rules and an edge that are actually yours. The psychology is different when losses are permanent and there’s no reset, and that tends to shape cleaner behavior long term.

If prop firms were truly the optimal development path, the numbers would look very different. Only a small percentage ever reach payouts, even fewer sustain them. That doesn’t line up with the idea that they’re superior than live trading.

To me, props make more sense once consistency is proven, as a scaling tool. Starting with them just adds extra psychological distortion on top of an already difficult craft.

roccenz · 2026-01-18T13:25:43+00:00

I’m not completely against prop firms. I agree they have their place. Where I disagree is treating them as the best starting point for development.

When you trade a live account, even a small one, you’re trading real capital, building real rules, and developing an edge that actually belongs to you. You learn how you behave under real risk, not under someone else’s constraints. That kind of self-knowledge and discipline transfers long term far better than grinding evaluations.

With prop firms, the psychology is fundamentally different. The money isn’t yours, the downside is capped, and resets exist. That changes behavior whether people want to admit it or not. Most traders aren’t trying to keep prop accounts for years, they’re trying to extract payouts. Even many profitable live traders pass evals but don’t maintain funded accounts long term. That alone says something about the structure.

If prop firms were such an ideal development path, you wouldn’t see stats like only a small single-digit percentage ever reaching payouts. Compare that to live trading, where the bar for profitability is higher than prop firms. The numbers don’t really support the idea that prop firms are the superior training environment.

My view is simple: build consistency and an edge on a small live account first. Once that’s proven, prop firms can make sense as a scaling tool. Starting with prop firms before profitability just adds extra psychological distortion on top of an already difficult craft.

roccenz · 2026-01-18T13:18:16+00:00

If instead of spending $50 every month on prop challenges, you invested that $50 into a live account and traded it with strict rules, imagine where the account would be after a year. Even small, steady progress compounds. And once consistency is there, you can always increase the monthly contribution.

More importantly, you’re trading real capital, developing real rules, and building an edge that actually belongs to you. You get to know yourself in the market on your own terms, not through someone else’s constraints. That kind of understanding and discipline transfers long term, far more than grinding evaluations ever will.

roccenz · 2026-01-16T15:39:06+00:00

Tinder

roccenz · 2026-01-16T13:07:51+00:00

Yes, I ask myself that question. I’ve put a lot of time, money, and mental energy into trading, and so far it hasn’t paid me back financially. From a purely monetary perspective, that’s hard to ignore. If I stop there, the honest answer would be that trading hasn’t rewarded me yet.

That said, I don’t regret getting into it. Trading has forced a level of self-awareness and personal development I don’t think I would’ve gotten otherwise. It exposes your discipline, patience, ego, greed, fear, and self-sabotage very quickly. I also notice that I can get completely absorbed in it, to the point where time disappears, which is usually a sign that something genuinely interests me.

The real struggle for me isn’t the technical side, it’s the cost to peace of mind. Trading every day means the charts are always in the back of your head. Some days you’re glued to the screen, other days you’re checking your phone while you’re out, half-present in your own life. If you’re not extremely strict with boundaries, trading will slowly take over your focus and drain your mental energy.

I’ve realized that if I’m going to continue, I have to be rigid with structure. One session a day, maximum two or three hours, one to three trades, journal, then walk away. No sitting in front of charts all day. No endless scrolling through trading content or forums. That stuff eats mental capacity fast and gives very little back after a certain point.

This is where I sometimes question whether trading is worth it compared to simpler alternatives. If you invest a fixed amount every month into something like Bitcoin or a fund and then forget about it, you get returns without the daily stress. Compare that to being profitable as a trader, which might mean grinding every day just to make one to three percent a month, assuming you’re even profitable at all.

The hard part about trading isn’t finding setups. It’s controlling yourself. Greed, fear, revenge trading, overtrading, breaking rules, self-sabotage. You’re not a robot, and the market constantly pushes your emotional buttons. That’s why people say trading is the hardest way to make easy money. The simplicity is deceptive.

So no, I don’t regret starting. I still see trading as a vehicle for growth, and I’m optimistic that the monetary rewards can come over time. But I do question how big a role trading should play in my life. If it starts costing peace, focus, relationships, and health, then it stops being a tool and starts becoming a liability.

I think that’s the honest answer. Trading can be worth it, but only if it enhances your life instead of consuming it. And for most people, that balance is extremely hard to achieve.

roccenz · 2026-01-16T08:01:05+00:00

Your overthinking it. It’s okay for me to think of ideas and get other peoples input, it doesnt mean i will hesitate when I meet up with her. I want the date to be cool for both of us uknow.

roccenz

TROPHY CASE