A simple method that's consistently profitable is accomplishing such because the trader has a deep and complex understanding of today's markets.
So what this essentially tells me, as I suspected, is that even though you want to teach by showing one or two things, what's really going on is way more complex that you need tons of screen time to learn. Its not as simple as a line break and then buying or selling the next RET. Its not as simple as shorting or going long at a predetermined level. This could very well be why nobody is showing consistent profits, other than supposedly 40D and Db.
This may also very well be why neither show their entries. There are tons of places where a trade could be initiated based on the rules they suggest, but where trades aren't in fact initiated because of some other sub-rule. If they showed their actual trades, they would perhaps hardly ever be according to the plan.
On the surface, we are presented with a rather simple trading plan that can be followed, yet when you get down to the nitty gritty, along with this has to actually come a very deep understanding of price action.
This is why, once again, for the 10th time at least, I keep suggesting that instead of these guys teaching what they think is important, they could just show their trades, because this would allow me to actually learn what they are doing, not trying to learn from what they are telling me they think is important.
There was a great dating study done where subjects were asked to describe their ideal mate, and after a speed dating session, notes were compared to see who they in fact wanted to go out with. Surprisingly, or rather not, depending on how you look at it, most people were attracted to someone not anything like what they described.
So with trading, I say instead of teaching me how to trade based on what you "think" you do and look at, why don't you show me how you actually trade. I bet that none of Db's entries are based on 1 point above or below a RET that is on a 1 minute chart.