Al Brooks, I apologize..

candles said:
Is the issue that the detractors think that Anyone can draw a range in foresight, and then use the benefit of hindsight to annotate a chart on how they traded that range?
More...

Not everyone knows how to draw a range, but anyone who cares to can learn how to do so. It's not as if it's an advanced skill.

As to annotating potential trades afterward, those aren't even necessary if the trader understands that one buys a breakout to the upside and sells a breakout to the downside and that there is more than one way to do so. One would think that this is a duh, but it's surprising how many don't get this. They take a shotgun approach, jumping on anything that moves without any regard for the probabilities that the trade might actually make money. A general G&H approach (guess and hope).

The issue in this case, however, is not me but MarketAddict and his view that Al Brooks is or may be useful (see the first post).
 
taowave said:
If you mean by asking for a track record,or some verifiable proof that the methods one is touting can be substantiated,then I guess I am raising my hand.

Seems to me if you are an advocate of not posting returns yet making claims,you have something to hide.
More...
This is absolutely correct.
 
Laissez Faire said:
Are you saying one can learn to trade in a few weeks?



No, here you're wrong.

I didn't lose a ton of money because of that mentor. I deviated from his path before that. But when I got in touch with him I was clueless and since this guy seemed to REALLY know what he was talking about and his only "occupation" at the moment was as a trader, I trusted in him and that he knew what he was talking about.

What I wasted was the money I spent on useless books and the time I spent on useless studies. It wasn't completely useless though, since that's part of life and learning.

I'm not wallowing in victomhood at all and I take full responsibility for my own losses.

The point is that I would respect you and others a lot more if you were honest about your results or lack of results if that's the case.
More...
I'm not certain that there are any results.
 
smallStops said:
Do you take into account that db did not have a Psychology degree ?
I know of an economics graduate who got a PhD in psychology ( economic market operator psychology got him a PhD in psychology).
AND I totally respect - even if I do not agree, nor condone - with db's point of views. Including the Insight/Foreseigt threads.

Now one interesting question : why does providing evidences upset people?
I am checking 90% seemignly against it, 10% seemingly for it : any reasons for such a bias?

I would find it interesting to have as many people giving a go to a Combine, just for the fun.
Just the stats (P&L and the whole lot) are an eyeopener.
More...
Ahem--Most results are likely negative.
 
taowave said:
...I was honestly not debating either,nor was I specifically addressing the OP.I joined in the conversation late,and agreed there are those still seeking,AND/OR those who want proof of profitability. Its not necessarily one or the other.

My point is,if anyone should make a claim on profitability,and can actually verify them,they could very well have someone knocking on their door offering them 1 and 20,2 and 20 or a higher split dependent on their style of trading.To post profitable results can only lead to good things,with no real downside.

I have traded firm capital,hedge fund money and my own,and I would choose OPM 11 out of 10 times.
More...

Yeah, this thread is started by MarketAddict and about his views of Al Brooks trade method. I assumed you were talking about him when you enter this thread...thanks for the clarification.

As to your hypothetical situation for others reading your comments, everybody is different. Thus, such a deal would be attractive to some while not attractive to others...professional and/or personal reasons. Simply, to some there may be a downside.

I've seen folks in many different careers turn down lucrative deals, promotions for many reasons...professionally and personally because there was a downside for them whereas not a downside for someone else.

I'm sure someone with your background has seen such too. My best friend is an institutional trader and he turned down a big promotion that would have required him to leave the country along with uprooting his family (wife and kids...wife has a high paying job herself). He said no to the big promotion because he's devoted to helping take care of his aging sick parents. Thus, 11 out of 10 times his answer would be NO.

Everybody is different.
 
Last edited:
taowave said:
Yes,the need for tangible proof may be requested by those still seeking,or it may be by those who know the proof is in the pudding."

DB,to quote a fellow poster,"the wheels fell off the bus" by page 2.
I joined in on page 4. Both sides were not terribly respectful.





I was honestly not debating either,nor was I specifically addressing the OP.I joined in the conversation late,and agreed there are those still seeking,AND/OR those who want proof of profitability. Its not necessarily one or the other.

My point is,if anyone should make a claim on profitability,and can actually verify them,they could very well have someone knocking on their door offering them 1 and 20,2 and 20 or a higher split dependent on their style of trading.To post profitable results can only lead to good things,with no real downside.

I have traded firm capital,hedge fund money and my own,and I would choose OPM 11 out of 10 times.
More...
There is no debate--Just automatic gainsaying. Whenever someone makes a point or asks for veracity, the subject is quickly deflected into a diatribe against the inquirer as to why they are wrong, why they don't practice what they preach and then personal attacks. No information concerning effectiveness is ever addressed. Likely there can be just one reason for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top