Okay, I read through the thread and it sure looks like the majority of veteran posters must be busy or bored to let the thread meander without stating the obvious, so I'll bite:
You say you've spent a 2.5 years trading, took a seminar, then read Al Brooks, and now have a system that gives you 5-10 pts daily with just 1 pt risk. You emphasize that it took you 1.5 years to come up with your current system.
A time span of 2.5 years is not much at all when it comes to the time it takes to become proficient in trading, but certainly is enough time for you to already know the basics of what the trading success and failure rates are.
So to start an entry that you have this "system" that nets 5-10 pts daily with just 1 pt of risk per trade and then ask how does it compare is beyond ludicrous and reeks of troll bait.
You may as well say you have a system that guarantees lottery jackpots monthly, and "wonder" if that's any good compared to the results of other lottery players.
You claim you read Al Brooks- and he clearly states that if you can get 1-2 pts solid per day, you are doing great because you can always adjust leverage, but somehow that escapes you so you have "no idea" of whether "5-10 pts daily" is good or not.
Algofy responds sarcastically, and now you're forced to play along as if you have no idea about what a good return is, but strangely enough, you know all about the returns of major hedge funds and "wonder" why that can't match your "performance".
The kicker is you haven't even started your system, have no long term performance results to discuss/post as evidence or proof, yet feel okay to criticize the "poor" hedge funds who can't match the 100% return of your system, which you have no long term data on, if any.
Yeah, this is a legit thread - no troll bait at all.....