Al brooks says breakouts provide the largest edge for a trader yet...

[satchel]

Wulf, your initial contributions had promise, however you dissembled into into an 'aw shucks it's only $140 for the books' approach. Now you are throwing out credentials.

Let's get back to the point? Al sells books and is there any proof that after sucking down a few mind-numbing hours of reading his literature, one will have a winning methodology? Even he can't explain it?

I believe the only people that this book appeals to are the ones that have this desire to accomplish something difficult, think if they can just figure this out. Because if it is not difficult it's not worth it. Nach/Need for achievement: The desire to accomplish something difficult. Kinda Jack Hersheyesque?

Trading is simple, the trading plan is simple.

 

[gmst]

Quote from Wulfrede:

You asked me if I knew the effort required to become an engineer. I answered yes. Further, I maintain that the effort to become a trader is far greater.

/Wulfrede

+1. I agree with above. Becoming successful at trading is much harder than successfully completely grad work at an ivy league. I attest to it.

 

[marketsurfer]

A; Brooks claims to have an MD-- anyone check on that? Not to mention, what on earth does an MD have to do with finance? If you need a guru, at least get someone with pedigree or success evidence--- folks like JaK Hersey and his literite doppleganger Xspert and this al brook guy write in strange ways-- but very similar to those skilled in pattern recognition. but that seems to attract readers-- weird. surf

 

[Wulfrede]

Quote from satchel:

Wulf, your initial contributions had promise, however you dissembled into into an 'aw shucks it's only $140 for the books' approach. Now you are throwing out credentials.

Let's get back to the point? Al sells books and is there any proof that after sucking down a few mind-numbing hours of reading his literature, one will have a winning methodology? Even he can't explain it?

I believe the only people that this book appeals to are the ones that have this desire to accomplish something difficult, think if they can just figure this out. Because if it is not difficult it's not worth it. Nach/Need for achievement: The desire to accomplish something difficult. Kinda Jack Hersheyesque?

Trading is simple, the trading plan is simple.

I normally don't contribute so I felt this time I had something to share. I was asked a question, so I felt I needed to qualify my answer; hence the credentials. If you read my posts you'll know I am not exactly proud nor do I feel particularly accomplished.

As to the point: I've said before that Brooks texts are not bedtime reading. They require studying and from my college years I recall most useful texts being pretty mind numbing as well. So I fail to see why Brooks texts are in disfavor. They are difficult to read, yes. Who said this was supposed to be easy?

You raise a good point about the appeal of the challenge in figuring Brooks out. Yes, it's there. But I have to tell you, the appeal gets even stronger once you start to realize that his methods resonate with what you already know. It's sort of like horse smelling water. You run faster.

As to trading being simple: On surface I would agree, the mechanics are straightforward. The plan can be too. But in the quest to actually making consistent money and living off the profits I found all of it to be the exact opposite.

/Wulfrede

 

[R. Raskolnikov]

Which is it? You seem to do this a lot, contradict yourself.

Quote from marketsurfer:



Why do folks even read books like these, when there is so much literature from actual proven traders? I just don't get it. It must be poor lost souls that just want their preconceived ideas confirmed....................


I found it unreadable. That does not mean I didn't try to read it---

 

[atticus]

Quote from Wulfrede:

CS is an Engineering degree. At least it was when I got it. My school was called SEAS (School of Engineering and Applied Science).

BTW, EE is Electrical Engineering. There are many kinds of engineers. But I digress.

/Wulfrede

I must be from the Dark Ages, but I only consider four disciplines; chemical, mechanical, electrical and civil. Princeton may be different.

 

[Ol' Yella]

Quote from marketsurfer:

A; Brooks claims to have an MD-- anyone check on that? Not to mention, what on earth does an MD have to do with finance? If you need a guru, at least get someone with pedigree or success evidence--- folks like JaK Hersey and his literite doppleganger Xspert and this al brook guy write in strange ways-- but very similar to those skilled in pattern recognition. but that seems to attract readers-- weird. surf

I have also noted similarities in writing styles of some self-professed internet gurus, it's hard to put into words what it is, but it is there

there is something in that style that draws people in

part is their talent as writers, and part is they way they talk of deep, dark secrets that they have uncovered...

its the kind of thing you'd read in Tolkien books, where you have a sorcerer who in act of heroic sacrifice spends years of painstaking study crafting his magic spells, sacrificing everything along the way and now possess magic powers others can only dream of...

stuff like that, and Luke learning "The Force" from Yoda.... they make for great stories that capture our imaginations. But it doesnt carry over into real life and it is not how skilled professionals in ANY field learn their craft.

remember there was a guy in your journal a while back talking about secret advanced TA methods that arent found in any books or websites.... and how the TA he used is like nothing else he has ever seen in the public domain.

that stuff sounds good and may inspire some misguided souls to embark on their own solitary journey of 10k hours..... but it's nonsense. If becoming a good trader required 10,000 hours of wading through gobbledegook trying to figure everything out on your own and living like Smeagol for 5-10 years then there wouldn't be any good traders!

 

[wrbtrader]

Quote from Wulfrede:

...As to the point: I've said before that Brooks texts are not bedtime reading. They require studying and from my college years I recall most useful texts being pretty mind numbing as well. So I fail to see why Brooks texts are in disfavor. They are difficult to read, yes. Who said this was supposed to be easy?

/Wulfrede

Amen to that.

I still have my organic chem, genetic, ethical anthropology and a few other books that gave me nightmares in college let alone needing a tutor to open my mind again after the "novocain like" professor speeches that left my eyes blood shot red after each class as if I had some sort'uv a hangover.

Too many traders expect to read some seductive trading novel they can curl up in bed with while sipping on a glass of wine and then get up in the morning to make a run on the ATM.

 

[Swan Noir]

Al's writing style leaves a great deal to be desired -- sometimes even the English language. Yet I think there is also a great deal of truth to wrb's comment. Lots of the easy to read, easy to understand pablum is truly nonsense. There is a lot in Al's work that can contribute to a winning methodolgy and just because you can't use it "off-the-rack" to make money does not make it wothless.

Those of you that are basing there comments on his first book -- BAR by BAR -- deserve sympathy. That is written in a foreign and unkown tongue but the more recent stuff is better.

Quote from wrbtrader:

Too many traders expect to read some seductive trading novel they can curl up in bed with while sipping on a glass of wine and then get up in the morning to make a run on the ATM.

 

[Wulfrede]

Quote from Ol' Yella:

I have also noted similarities in writing styles of some self-professed internet gurus, it's hard to put into words what it is, but it is there

there is something in that style that draws people in

part is their talent as writers, and part is they way they talk of deep, dark secrets that they have uncovered...

its the kind of thing you'd read in Tolkien books, where you have a sorcerer who in act of heroic sacrifice spends years of painstaking study crafting his magic spells, sacrificing everything along the way and now possess magic powers others can only dream of...

stuff like that, and Luke learning "The Force" from Yoda.... they make for great stories that capture our imaginations. But it doesnt carry over into real life and it is not how skilled professionals in ANY field learn their craft.

remember there was a guy in your journal a while back talking about secret advanced TA methods that arent found in any books or websites.... and how the TA he used is like nothing else he has ever seen in the public domain.

that stuff sounds good and may inspire some misguided souls to embark on their own solitary journey of 10k hours..... but it's nonsense. If becoming a good trader required 10,000 hours of wading through gobbledegook trying to figure everything out on your own and living like Smeagol for 5-10 years then there wouldn't be any good traders!

This is an interesting take and a valid point. I've witnessed this sort of phenomenon in various places where non-determinism and human behavior is heavily involved. It is a great sales tool.

I keep on commenting on this thread almost at the risk of appearing ostentatious because I feel that dismissing Brooks on the account of apparent obfuscation or some thinly veiled mysticism is shortsighted.

Another reason is that as I talk about Brooks work somehow I understand better why I identify with quite a bit of it.

His wording is often tough to parse and may even seem two-sided, depending on the reference timeframe. But there is nothing mystical about what he says. He uses conventional tools to break down price action and assigns a specific meaning to each piece. He is actually often too literal about these meanings (for example calling something a technical double top because two 5min candles have wicks at the same price point where there is no obvious double top on a 1 minute chart) - all in the effort to stay consistent with his own rules and definitions.

If you read and re-read any of the examples in his books, it is very clear what he means. It can't be interpreted in more than one way. After a while you fall into a pattern and things sort of click into place as you keep going through the text.

And again, I don't know how Al markets his material but I don't view what he (or anyone else) says as holy grail. It's a way to look at things. One way you know that what he says has merit is when you take a trade for your own reasons and realize that Brooks methods would get you into that same trade. Maybe at a somewhat different price with a somewhat different risk, but they'd get you in.

It's simple really: the market trades the same way for everybody. If it's a trend, you'll find a way to buy a pullback or enter outright. If it's a range you'll find a way to scale against/fade it. Most methods will eventually agree on how it's done even if they have different specific reasons leading them to the same conclusion.

/Wulfrede