LOL... best according to who? From what I can see after watching many many of his videos, he never talks about his own trades, the trades in SIM that he took mostly didn't work out, he shows trades with 1 or 2 lots, saying its to better demonstrate how a new trader should trade and then gloats about how his size would be at least 6 times this.K - why not look at one of the youtube videos from one of the best ES scalpers on the planet. A 2 hour video from a famous trader that use to account for a lot of the ES volume and now trains/develops successful prop traders while still an active trader. This will give you more info than 10,000 years of 3 liners from a forum ever could. Good LUCK!
And then to top it all off, every single "trader bite" that he produces has a Hypo 1 and Hypo 2 which are always in opposite directions. He goes on to say that for his paid clients, he will go into at least 5 different scenarios. Then the next day, he will just state which of the scenarios worked out, and sometimes its even a combination of 1 and 2.
I'm not saying his methods are wrong, but based on what he shows, anyone could do what he shows. Will he show his trades in order to prove how good he is? Of course not. The money is in teaching and running his own prop firm.
In one video he specifically said that he was taking trades, going down to 1 lot to demonstrate since he had a webinar later in the afternoon. Now tell me this. If he routinely can trade up to 48 contracts, and gets just a few points per day, then its not hard to imagine him making at least 10k on most days. Why cripple your profits for that day just to do a webinar? Why go down to 1 lot when you're used to trading so much more size?
I personally think his scalping edge is gone, and the win rate on the trades he takes isn't nearly high enough to give him the confidence to trade huge size, hence the steady teaching paycheck. His only setup seems to be to take a trade once price hits the mid after showing its making a move.
Anyway... just thought I'd provide some perspective.