I do not know about the 300,000 in a hedged situation but I can state that in 1996, all tech did allow their traders to have a long account and set up a short account to get around the "uptick" rule. Then congress or the sec came out with a ruling or law and it was no longer allowed. Now, I would be a little surprised if this was still going on years later but who knows. By the way I started with all-tech in the San Diego office. One of those two managers/owners became the poster boy for the congressional investigation. I laughed my ass off when I saw Barry testifying in front of Congress. Because I remember him wanting me to allow someone else to have my money transferred over to someone else to avoid overnight margin calls. Barry was out for himself but if you asked him he did give you straight answers. I thought it was ridiculous that they advertised that it was easy but at the same time I thought it was a joke when many of his former customers sued him because they lost hundreds of thousands of dollars trading. At some point you can no longer blame the pusher.
The all-tech training in San Diego (which I got see for free because I was already trading in the office when the trainer came out), was the biggest scam and crock of shit ever and I mean ever. They were teaching strategies that were worse than ineffective they were designed to lose. In fact when I learned more they were almost criminally stupid. Harvey should have been ashamed of himself. They taught people to wait for the market odometer to speed up, see green and press soes buy. This left you in the soes line for the market makers who waited for the spoos to reverse and they would then take every soes idiot they could and you were instantly down 3/8 on a thousand to start the trade. That is not to say you could not make money if you figured it out, but I had to go to a different firm to get trained and figure it out.
That Harvey guy, I never trusted him after I saw his $3,000 training course.
I have nothing against paying for training, because I did not start to make good money(during the momentum days) until I paid the guys who trained me an 1/8 a cent share for a year. Which turned out to be a good sum. (By the way that method taught to me in 1997, grafted on to a 20 period moving average (I was an LBR fan at the time), and then later filtered with a Stochastic {Dave like the stochs after he was shown one}, is the method Dave Floyd, mentioned earlier in this thread was/is now hawking on tradingmarkets.) I had no complaints about paying for it because for a while it enabled me and others in our office to make some good money for a few years.
Consequently I agree the earlier posters, most good teachers would make more off splitting profits than training fees. And you save a ton of marketing time. But if a teacher can prove he is good at what he does (making profitable traders) even a somewhat jaded trader like myself would be happy to pay him or her.
The all-tech training in San Diego (which I got see for free because I was already trading in the office when the trainer came out), was the biggest scam and crock of shit ever and I mean ever. They were teaching strategies that were worse than ineffective they were designed to lose. In fact when I learned more they were almost criminally stupid. Harvey should have been ashamed of himself. They taught people to wait for the market odometer to speed up, see green and press soes buy. This left you in the soes line for the market makers who waited for the spoos to reverse and they would then take every soes idiot they could and you were instantly down 3/8 on a thousand to start the trade. That is not to say you could not make money if you figured it out, but I had to go to a different firm to get trained and figure it out.
That Harvey guy, I never trusted him after I saw his $3,000 training course.
I have nothing against paying for training, because I did not start to make good money(during the momentum days) until I paid the guys who trained me an 1/8 a cent share for a year. Which turned out to be a good sum. (By the way that method taught to me in 1997, grafted on to a 20 period moving average (I was an LBR fan at the time), and then later filtered with a Stochastic {Dave like the stochs after he was shown one}, is the method Dave Floyd, mentioned earlier in this thread was/is now hawking on tradingmarkets.) I had no complaints about paying for it because for a while it enabled me and others in our office to make some good money for a few years.
Consequently I agree the earlier posters, most good teachers would make more off splitting profits than training fees. And you save a ton of marketing time. But if a teacher can prove he is good at what he does (making profitable traders) even a somewhat jaded trader like myself would be happy to pay him or her.
