I'm pretty sure I trust cambridge's definition instead of one of mine i just came up with. Imagine if we all just made up our own definitions for every word
But this is exactly how it happens
There is no kind of absolute definition "sourced" from somewhere unto us which we should accept without any further question. And ultimately, yes, we have our own understanding of what every word means or describes. Anyway, appeal to authority (which is what you are doing here) speaks a lot about your own lack of true understanding rather than me failing to make a compelling argument. Put differently, you can't change an opinion or point of view where there is none to begin with
you're just pointing out that most day traders lose money. sure a small proportion of them are successful. but the same is true for gamblers
They can't consistently lose money. And there is no endless influx of new traders which could potentially give some credibility to your claim. These two factors can mean only one thing, that short-term traders cannot be losing money en masse
your comparing "short term traders" to "bagholders", not "short term traders" to "long term traders".
That's how bag holders are calling themselves (and hodlers, while we are at it). Simply put, "long-term traders" is a handy euphemism