Quote from Riskmanager:
Those of you criticizing Dan Zanger absolutely haven't understood the edge he has capitalized on.
Out of all the traders mentioned above, Zanger is the one offering the most precise strategies to make money with.
I'm trading a strategy very similar to his, and the results I've achieved so far with real money are nothing short of spectacular.
This edge still doesn't place him the company of those that are considered the top traders. By top I mean those that had continued to trade consistently, and increase theirs as well as their clients capital, with above average return compared to their benchmark.
Simply stated, with a 50% return net of taxes say 30% over 5 years since the bubble burst 20mil would be around 74mil today. What it boils down to is this. Was his performance solely a product of a speculative mania in technology, he was able to capitalize on, or is he such a great trader that he should be able to continue to produce well above average returns? By doing so placing him the ranks of those considered by other traders to have been some of the best and worth the effort to study his methodology.
I've been to his sight years ago, and he doesn't offer anything as far as patterns and methodology that can't be found on mumerous other sights, or in books. Want to know about patterns look at Bulkowskis work on probabilities, tendencies and technique. Want to know about risk, reward, price action and volume, position sizing and psychology of market participants. Take a look at the work produced by Teresa Lo, Martin Pring, William O'Neill, or Van Tharp.
Just my humble opinion on others that I consider to be great at what they do, though they don't have spectacular one year returns. I've digressed my apologies.
Good Luck and Good Trading! Glad you found something that helped!
Kelly
