how to understand Al Brooks

[Scataphagos]

I hear you ... (I have an extravagant enthusiasm both for correcting factual misinformation when I see it on the board, and sometimes for supplying literal answers to rhetorical questions, too - and probably did both, with my response above!

)

Oh, Gawd! My wife's like that.

 

[volpri]

The man has given out a trove of valuable information at a price way less than most vendors and educational sites. I cannot stand idly by while someone who reads 22 pages of his book and won’t look at the glossary and then has the gall to down him.

And NO I am not BROOKS.

 

[Xela]

The man has given out a trove of valuable information at a price way less than most vendors and educational sites.

This is also true.

Oh, Gawd! My wife's like that.

LOL ... well, you married her, so it can't be all bad.

 

[zenemini]

I believe that now the video-course probably makes it quite a bit easier for most people.

His video course seems worthwhile. And $350 is a reasonable price for the effort he put into it and the quality of the final product.

He really should go back to that first book and do a simple rewrite with an educated trader who has writing skills to act as editor/collaborator. As I said earlier, he got off to a good start. At some point, early on, his audience became himself and not the book buying public. In other words, he started very soon to assume that reader to whom he was writing already knew the material about which he was writing. From what I gather at his web site, he did enlist the aid of someone as a collaborator/editor for the video series, which is likely why it is a much higher quality product than his first book. I haven't viewed all the videos, but it does not appear as though he offers a trading plan of any sort. That isn't a criticism, just a noting the absence. So if someone wants his course to provide step by step how to make money trading plan, it isn't there. But there is a blueprint from which such a plan could be constructed, in my opinion.

So I stand by my review: Burn his book, buy (and watch) the video course. Time is money. I assume nearly everything in his book is in that video course. Anyone, and I mean anyone will learn the material much more quickly via the videos than struggling to decipher his enigmatic and tortuous prose.

 

[wrbtrader]

This is like a broken record. Page 19 was the first mention. Page 22 he mentioned these terms again. At that point, I was not going to plod through an already poorly enough written book where the author wasn't savvy enough to define his terms when first brought up. I have already said that I gave up at that point, so no ... I did not read the next 98 pages of tortured prose to find his definitions which belonged on page 19.

I have now given far more of my time to Al Brooks than he is worth, so I respectfully bow out of any further discussion here. Thank you.

I think most agree that Al's books are poorly written along with poor editing by the publishing house. Hopefully Al does not continue using that publishing house after so many complaints. The good ones edit the content to make it clear. They actually have specific people hired to that that for the authors...making +50k per year. Some do contract work for publishing firms at +$40 per hour.

I've seen other authors in similar situations and then change (switch) to a different publishing house that does better editing.

With that said, I've read many highly technical books in college from microbiology, genetics, bio-chemistry, organic chemistry...I can say the issue involving looking forward in the book to find an explanation is common.

Almost all my books had sticky note tabs to make it easier to refer to an explanation later in the book for something I was currently reading. For example, something currently read in chapter 7 and then needing to read an explanation in chapter 12 to understand something in chapter 7. In fact, I would join study groups to make sense of all the badly explained info while others felt the book was ok as if it was a right of passage to learning that everybody must go thru.

In fact, I had a few classes that had technical terms explained in another earlier (prior) book that all students should have read. A pain in the butt...now I had to read two different books...the other book used as a reference to help me understand content in the current class. Nothing new or surprising about this.

Thus, maybe the way Al writes is something (bad writing habits) he picked up from his days in college from those medical books or science books. He's very old, I wouldn't expect him to change.

The suggestion you made about him needing to do a rewrite or revision is great...many do such...hopefully Al will eventually do the same.

wrbtrader

 

[userque]

With that said, I've read many highly technical books in college from microbiology, genetics, bio-chemistry, organic chemistry...I can say the issue involving looking forward in the book to find an explanation is common.

A definition doesn't necessarily mean an explanation.

Terms 'invented' by the author (etc.) must be defined prior to, or during their first use--if the material is to be effectively followed by the reader.

Highly technical books do do this.

But they may not do this for general terms that probably should already be understood by most readers of that material.

At the very least, a cite to where the definition is located should be provided.

 

[padutrader]

Since you credit Brooks with your success, could you give us an idea of how well you are doing now, and how poorly you were doing before you discovered his videos? Be as vague or as specific as you like, but just give us an idea of the progress that you attribute directly to him, and kindly identify the other available resources (books, courses, etc.) that did not help you.

actually even after i saw his videos i lost money for a long time....even if you use a fantastic strategy you can lose money if you use too much leverage.
i think what changed my trading was the discovery of the buyer and sellers cycle which Al does speak about though he does not call it that.
just what is this cycle: the market or swing progresses like this ; breakout which then weakens into a channel and then the channel further weakens into a tight trading range and then a reversal.
I have used this to huge success and sometimes have traded for long periods as long as a month without any loss.

 

[padutrader]

Chapter 4 on Pullbacks. The complete definition is in a section of that chapter in big bold black print on page 118.

i too have found the definitions in the book,in the videos.

 

[padutrader]

Okay, that's fair. But retracements and reversals are fairly generic and are covered in most trading-related books that go into any specifics. It is the "additional refinements and flourishes" that make it your own and that form part of a comprehensive trading plan. So, apart from equivocation and obfuscation, what does Brooks bring to the table, in general terms, that any other of a long line of coherently written trading books do not? Serious question.

serious answer : as i have mentioned earlier, in one word, nothing new.....[sorry that is two words] but that does not make him wrong; however i have found he is the only one who clearly mentions the cycle of buyers and sellers which every swing goes through

of course the worst he can be accused of is needlessly repeating the truth and trying to imply that he discovered it....most teachers are guilty of that .Ross is even guilty of naming the first pullback in swing as "Ross hook"
trading is ridiculously simple....but it takes decades, of sifting through all the rubbish produced by Brooks, Ross, Hansen AND MANY OTHERS, to realise this

 

[padutrader]

A definition doesn't necessarily mean an explanation.

Terms 'invented' by the author (etc.) must be defined prior to, or during their first use--if the material is to be effectively followed by the reader.

Highly technical books do do this.

But they may not do this for general terms that probably should already be understood by most readers of that material.

At the very least, a cite to where the definition is located should be provided.

a H2 does nos not require explanation it is a simple concept....