I would think that’s probably right, for most people, most of the time. That’s in [B]huge contrast[/B] to reading accredited textbooks, though.
What goes into forex “blogs and articles” mostly goes there for promotional/marketing purposes, and that’s exactly what you need to avoid, because it’s usually been published with no quality control, no editorial approval, no peer review, and for reasons more to do with promoting other people’s businesses than with helping you.
This is why you’re generally far, far safer and better off reading long-established, accredited, mainstream, orthodox textbooks (to which very few of the above problems generally apply!) instead. Bear in mind that you’re trying to be one of a small minority, who ever achieve what you’re trying to do, so you really can’t afford to stack the deck even further against yourself in a field in which overall success-rates are so low.
A rather widespread misunderstanding.
It sounds so superficially attractive, doesn’t it, to express the view that practical experience is needed to master a practical technique? Who could possibly argue with that?
The reality is that it’s a sentiment which leads [I]huge[/I] numbers of people astray.
Yes, it’s needed, too - but [B]later[/B].
One of the important and very significant differences between an aspiring trader with 3 years’ good experience and another with 3 months’ poor experience repeated twelve times over is typically that the latter believed what you’ve just said, above, and tried to put it into practice without [B][U]first[/U][/B] having mastered the essentials of the counterintuitive subjects of probability and statistics that all successful traders need to come to terms with not only to become successful but also [I][U]to benefit from their learning experience[/U][/I].
For this reason, what you’re saying above (and elsewhere) is actually misguided.