Al Brooks, I apologize..
- Thread starter MarketAddict
- Start date
No. Voldemort is dead. Sam leads oversight, and Herkermer is running field operations.I think so, yes.
Is that you, Voldemort?
By the way, I'm sure that you do not have the Lagrangian, and even if you did, I'm sure you could not solve it.
Happy that you have an statistical tool that you think gives you an edge. Whatever it is, don't share it!.
And kudos to you. Not that I'll ask you anything about your trading. And woe be unto any who dare to do so. I'll just take your word for it.
(Bet you never imagined that your little acknowledgement of Brooks would garner over a 100 posts . . . )
Not at all..
I'll let you figure out that yourself.
As for my trading plan, it's private. Among things in my toolbox is a proprietary statistical analysis tool that I developed. I got the idea from a clever guy on this forum, but he never handed it out for free and only spoke in riddles, so I had to deduce most of it on my own. And I paid a lot of money and time to develop it.
So I'll like to keep that for myself, I think.
Are you day trading your plan yet? Let me know how it goes...
I think the issue is not so much that someone is asked to show proof (e.g. live call, broker statement, trading plan, trade strategy rules or whatever) whenever they say they had a profitable day, profitable trade, profitable trader, sharing their support/belief in someone else that shares or just simply freely sharing their own trade method.
The issue is that folks have done the above (provided proof) but get pssst that when someone else comes later and make the same request. It's never ending. Eventually those being accused just begin ignoring the new requests for proof and that then gives the idiot troll the belief its never been done. That's when the more trolls show up as if proof was NEVER provided just because the new trolls see the accused not caving in to the other recent requests.
For example, there's a particular trade journal here at ET that lasted about a month. Some guy posted live calls, broker statements and then actual video of his trading. He didn't do it to prove someone wrong. He just did it to get "help" (if needed) because he had some problems in his trading he was trying to resolve. Here's the issue...he was very profitable that month. His journal got very little replies and he stopped posting...lack of interest by readers.
Later (as in a few months) he returns to ET and one day decides to post elsewhere in the TA thread (not the journal thread) about something that improved his trading. A few trolls (the usual ones) showed up to say things like "post live calls to prove it". The guy refused to do it...he didn't even mention anything about his prior trade journal. Instead, he left ET and didn't return.
Just think about that very carefully. There was someone posting video of his actual profitable trading that then started "sharing". Now he's gone.
My point is this...nobody is obligated to continue posting proof of their trading unlimited number of times whenever a new idiot shows up to request proof. If the trolls are too lazy to research someone's posting history to answer their own questions...I really don't think ET members should be giving in to these requests to post any info that has been posted already in the past nor should ET members cave in to post new verifications whenever a new ET member joins the forum nor should anyone give in an post links to past verifications that was posted.
How many times is enough ?
The issue is that folks have done the above (provided proof) but get pssst that when someone else comes later and make the same request. It's never ending. Eventually those being accused just begin ignoring the new requests for proof and that then gives the idiot troll the belief its never been done. That's when the more trolls show up as if proof was NEVER provided just because the new trolls see the accused not caving in to the other recent requests.
For example, there's a particular trade journal here at ET that lasted about a month. Some guy posted live calls, broker statements and then actual video of his trading. He didn't do it to prove someone wrong. He just did it to get "help" (if needed) because he had some problems in his trading he was trying to resolve. Here's the issue...he was very profitable that month. His journal got very little replies and he stopped posting...lack of interest by readers.
Later (as in a few months) he returns to ET and one day decides to post elsewhere in the TA thread (not the journal thread) about something that improved his trading. A few trolls (the usual ones) showed up to say things like "post live calls to prove it". The guy refused to do it...he didn't even mention anything about his prior trade journal. Instead, he left ET and didn't return.
Just think about that very carefully. There was someone posting video of his actual profitable trading that then started "sharing". Now he's gone.
My point is this...nobody is obligated to continue posting proof of their trading unlimited number of times whenever a new idiot shows up to request proof. If the trolls are too lazy to research someone's posting history to answer their own questions...I really don't think ET members should be giving in to these requests to post any info that has been posted already in the past nor should ET members cave in to post new verifications whenever a new ET member joins the forum nor should anyone give in an post links to past verifications that was posted.
How many times is enough ?
Last edited:
Apparently not interesting enough to buy his books.
I don't think there are many people that really want the real deal. It doesn't allow them to turn the doubt towards someone else, and instead they might have to look in the mirror and realize that they have been kidding themselves all along.
Is there really any sort of retail edge worth withholding from the general public? I find that surprising, although not completely unbelievable.
Testimonial from students, and especially teachers, must be provided on a regular basis to maintain veracity. The only way to achieve that is with real time calls. There is no other substitute.
Last edited:
IT doesn't work that way. There has been more than enough evidence of the sort you ask for provided here at ET, and elsewhere, I would add. If you are too lazy to hunt it down, that is your own problem. Furthermore, everything you need to know to learn and test the method for yourself has been provided. Those who have done the work, from DbPhoenix years ago, to me two years ago, to a friend of mine at the end of last year, to lajax (who published all of his stats here at ET) from the just ended Q1 of this current year, all have come up with remarkably similar results as to what the method is capable of in terms of stop loss versus profits, winning percentage, time distribution of trades relative to session duration, duration and extent of trades in terms of length of time, etc. For example, everyone I know who has actually done the back tests have found that the average losing trade lasts 6-7 minutes. Every single one of us, independently of one another.
You keep harping saying that we ignore risk and don't talk of stop losses. Yet anyone following along can tell you that I use a 5 point hard stop. Most losses are cut at a level less than the initial hard stop. The only change to this I have made is that during when the hourly trend channel starts downward and volatility picks up, I use a 5.5 point hard stop. That two ticks makes a difference when the average daily range gets above the 25 point mark, I have found. Now, if you knew how and where I entered, you could test that and verify for yourself (which should mean more to you than anything I can say). Again, since this is not a system with mathematically defined rules (buy when RSI is < 50, exit when RSI>50) you would need to read the material, learnt the method, and then proceed to test. But you have shown that you are work averse (evidenced by how you (somewhat ironically, somewhat bizarrely) belittle us for showing too much analysis. lol
Anyhow, this is a trading forum. It is free. Its purpose is to allow people to share and discuss freely any topic under the sun. Who are you to attempt to set rules and limits on that discussion that the owner of the board doesn't impose?