Al Brooks, I apologize..

One must however taste the pudding.

 

Not everyone knows how to draw a range, but anyone who cares to can learn how to do so. It's not as if it's an advanced skill.

As to annotating potential trades afterward, those aren't even necessary if the trader understands that one buys a breakout to the upside and sells a breakout to the downside and that there is more than one way to do so. One would think that this is a duh, but it's surprising how many don't get this. They take a shotgun approach, jumping on anything that moves without any regard for the probabilities that the trade might actually make money. A general G&H approach (guess and hope).

The issue in this case, however, is not me but MarketAddict and his view that Al Brooks is or may be useful (see the first post).

 

This is absolutely correct.

 

Buy1Sell2, go ahead and put your hand down.

 

I'm not certain that there are any results.

 

Ahem--Most results are likely negative.

 

Yeah, this thread is started by MarketAddict and about his views of Al Brooks trade method. I assumed you were talking about him when you enter this thread...thanks for the clarification.

As to your hypothetical situation for others reading your comments, everybody is different. Thus, such a deal would be attractive to some while not attractive to others...professional and/or personal reasons. Simply, to some there may be a downside.

I've seen folks in many different careers turn down lucrative deals, promotions for many reasons...professionally and personally because there was a downside for them whereas not a downside for someone else.

I'm sure someone with your background has seen such too. My best friend is an institutional trader and he turned down a big promotion that would have required him to leave the country along with uprooting his family (wife and kids...wife has a high paying job herself). He said no to the big promotion because he's devoted to helping take care of his aging sick parents. Thus, 11 out of 10 times his answer would be NO.

Everybody is different.

 

Speaking of lack of proof . . .

 

There is no debate--Just automatic gainsaying. Whenever someone makes a point or asks for veracity, the subject is quickly deflected into a diatribe against the inquirer as to why they are wrong, why they don't practice what they preach and then personal attacks. No information concerning effectiveness is ever addressed. Likely there can be just one reason for that.