Al Brooks Net Worth

schizo said:
I want to set some facts straight. First, I ain't no Brooks' acolyte and I wasn't in any way defending Brooks. All I was asking was that you trade properly, as if you were trading live. But obviously that fell on deaf ears.

As far as your reputation is concerned, it will remain intact, not because you're better than Brooks, but nobody will pay any attention to you. In fact, I believe you've lost what little credibility you had.

Anyway, good luck going forward. This will be my last reply to you.
More...

I have traded properly, according to my own method, and have called all my trades ahead of time and have summarized the results so far accurately, as have you.

Its not possible to do better than that.

So who are you, Brooks acolyte or not, to say I haven't traded properly? Am I somehow challenging your reputation too, besides Brooks? A couple of your responses have challenged your own reputation, especially the one about how many points I have at risk is "too much".
 
Screenshot_20231117-003448.png
Record so far.
 
Last edited:
Brooks makes the most basic TA sound complicated, its difficult to read. He better be a Genius or worth $753 million.
 
Laissez Faire said:
Who are those?

The live demonstration in this thread gave 3 losses in a row.
More...

Not a big deal. High R:R systems can run 11 losses in a row. Trade 12 makes up for it. Ngl, it requires training to have the mental fortitude and discipline to execute.

Some use the strat of reducing risk per losing trade. The math doesn’t pencil out compared to keeping risk consistent. It’s easier to trade such systems by reducing overall r to fractions of a typical 1% per trade.
 
Sprout said:
Not a big deal. High R:R systems can run 11 losses in a row. Trade 12 makes up for it. Ngl, it requires training to have the mental fortitude and discipline to execute.

Some use the strat of reducing risk per losing trade. The math doesn’t pencil out compared to keeping risk consistent. It’s easier to trade such systems by reducing overall r to fractions of a typical 1% per trade.
More...

No, not a big deal either way, but it does show that it's easier to annotate yesterday's chart than trading tomorrow's chart. That's why I don't care much for a marked up chart of yesterday with idealized entries.

On to your example:

If the 12th trade makes up for it - the prior losses shouldn't be big.

Quick napkin math: If you risk 10 points per trade, that's 110 points in the hole on trade 11, so you need a huge winner at 110 points just to break even (excluding costs). If we use 5 points as a stop, you need 55 points on trade 11 to break even. Still a considerable trade.

The claim was that this method is highly profitable, so I was expecting more.

I'm repeating myself, but trading is a very marginable business. You're either making money or you're not. Getting it almost right is usually not good enough.

One could also argue that a method producing 11 losses in a row is far worse than random, so what's the use anyway?

Just using your example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top