The sheer reticence and reluctance of the method proponents to produce any real time trading calls or results and to deflect attention is in and of itself proof of the ordinary nature of this discipline.
There is ample evidence of "real-time" calls, before the fact trading plans for many particular days, and trading results, p/l's ect within the ET archives that can and have been easily found by every one
sincerely interested enough in the scribble approach to give it a
fair shake.
The reason no scribbler is likely to meet your continued demands for such calls and p/l's is that in the past, when this very information was provided, the result was not "Ok, thank you very much." Instead, those making the demands typically continued or even intensified their demands. The truth is that for someone who seeks evidence outside of what ought to be expected from trading forum participants, no level of documentation will be sufficient.
Today critics choose to call price action trading scribbles, and back in the original SLA thread the critics derisively called it "kindergarten lines." What's old is new, both with respect to the critics and the approach itself. If the current participants of ET wish for "proof" they will need to search the archives. It is not fair to expect us to post a fresh batch of calls and p/l's for every new bunch who decides that they are entitled to such information.
Here is the original SLA thread:
If You Can Draw A Straight Line . . .
It is a gem. If you were to first read DbPhoenix's FREE SLA/AMT pdf, and then work your way through that thread, you would likely have the basis for understanding at least what questions to ask. And no matter what method you use to trade, if you do in fact trade, learning what is in that thread can only help you.
Here we see an interactive brokers chart of a scribble student showing that he was able to sell short near the high of the day and cover profitably near the low. If you do not know how to discern this information from an IB chart, you can follow the link above the chart for an explanation to help you.
If You Can Draw A Straight Line . . .
Here is the chart of a scribble student with levels marked off prior to the session start, showing that the scribble student again was able to sell short near the high of the day and again cover profitably based on reading price action alone near the low of the swing. Note the actual p/l at the bottom of the chart.
Finally, here is a record of profits withdrawn by a scribble student during his second month of live scribble trading. Again, this is not new. All of these charts, p/ls, along with trading plans, and many other examples were posted in the original scribbles SLA thread.
I humbly submit that the scribblers made an honest and sincere effort very early on to show that this method could, was, and is being traded under real time market conditions in a consistently profitable manner. However, I also stand by my current opinion that more than enough substantiating information is available to those genuinely interested in the scribble method right here in the ET archives. If you are truly interested in learning, vetting, testing, and possibly trading this method, then do as reasonable people do: Do your
own due diligence. It makes no sense to continue to demand fresh proof of viability when plenty has already been made available to you if you were only to look for it.
EDIT: DbPhoenix's post in another thread prompts me to add that of course any and all evidence could be faked. What should really matter to you is whether or not there is a trading plan in place before hand against which to check the purported "results." I would invite you to go to the original SLA thread, and check any of the results I posted against the charts and my stated plan which were posted ahead of time. I would also suggest you use the same criteria elsewhere on ET and other forums as well. If someone claims to be making $Gazillions, what matters is not his results, but the plan by which he achieved them. And if the plan is not shared, then the results are suspect at best, imo.
