From Brook's website on the order page for his trading course: "If you’re new to trading, then you ARE going to lose money. If you’re in this to simply make money, please just leave this website, quit now, and have a professional invest and manage your money. However if you’re doing this because of a love of the markets and a love of the challenge of learning to master them, and you’re willing to approach this in a businesslike manner with an appreciation for the management of risk, then welcome. We hope our websites and videos can help you on your journey. Of course, the way we trade is not necessarily right for you. None of our material should be considered advice. If you wish to try any of the concepts we talk about, test first in a simulation environment and do NOT risk any money in a live-trading environment until success has been proven. If you have any questions about this, please contact us via the contact page." "you ARE going to lose money" "please just leave this website, quit now" "If you wish to try any of the concepts we talk about, test first in a simulation environment and do NOT risk any money in a live-trading environment until success has been proven." "the way we trade is not necessarily right for you" While perhaps not written in your precise words, the above disclaimer sounds like a fair warning that Brooks not only does not believe, nor does he intend for you or anyone else to believe his course is a "get rich quick" guide to the markets, but that it will take work, and time, and talent, and discipline to achieve mastery over the challenge that is trading. Of course, if one doesn't even have the discipline even to read product disclaimers prior to ordering a product, or, if one overestimates one's true work ethic, abilities, and willingness to spend the time necessary to achieve mastery over the material, then no disclaimer will be enough. But that is not Brook's responsibility. It is one's own.
Show me the disclaimers from 2008 when Brooks went public with books and webinars, I believe they were much more legalistic and shorter than what you quoted.
oh yeahhhh, Q3D! If u can save even 1 newbie from the evil brooks it will have been worth it. Because while u r rallying against brooks his supporters r figuring out new ways to use the rudiments 'his evilness' so graciously provided, and will be that might stronger when (if) u ever start thinking u have the tenacity to create the depth of logic required to consistently win against us.
Doesn't matter what it said then. This is now. Your criticism is current, and as Brook's current disclaimers show, your criticism is unfounded. Take his advice. "Quit now." You'll have a better chance of achieving HAPPYNESS. "please just leave this website, quit now" - Al Brooks
Mr. Brooks disclaimers have always been there since I saw the first book via a link posted here at ET many years ago when someone said the disclaimers were poorly written. The only difference is that the disclaimers first were stated by the company or site that had the sold the book and then there was disclaimers by Brooks himself... Essentially giving traders fair warning about expectations or risks involving trading and the market itself. Most traders don't like to read that stuff or don't take it seriously. Then when things don't work out...they pretend the disclaimers weren't there or difficult to find although usually stated on the first few pages or back of the book. The dishonest traders (the ones that lie) are the ones that don't even read the disclaimers by their brokers, charting programs about the hazards of trading and then intentionally lie to say they were not aware of the hazards of trading while reading any book even though the broker is not related to the author. The fact that the commonality is investing or trading...the understanding of the disclaimer (risks involved) from one is applicable to understanding of the disclaimer (risks involved) at the other. For example, if you have a trading account...you needed to sign those agreements to open your account. You can not trade unless they have that beautiful John Henry signature of yours and your money. Thus, your signature is stating for fact that you understand the risks involving trading. Therefore, the same understanding is applied when you then go and purchase a book about trading from a book store, amazon or whatever. There's actually been a few court cases involving such where people have tried to sue investment authors, financial advisors about bad investing/trading advice that was provided to them. Those that sued...all have lost those cases unless something illegal (fraudulent) had been done. There are many reasons why they lost in their lawsuits and one of them involves the above where there signed agreements with their brokers was introduced as proof that they understood the disclaimers involving the risk of trading...that in itself meant they understand that its the same risks involved if they buy a book or get personal advice from a certified financial advisor about trading. The above reasons is also why Baron (ET owner) can not be successfully sued by any ET member that gets bad trading advice from another ET member that's anonymous or uses his/her real name. This is true even though this website has "no disclaimer" statement. I don't know what specific law this involves but Baron is off the hook for members getting bad advice from other members. In contrast, an entire different legal situation involving internet trolls that consistently post negative commentary about someone that's not anonymous. There has been cases where people online have been successfully sued by authors that proved that the person(s) online posting had used lies, falsehood or misinformation to harm the author's reputation. Most of these cases are dismissed but some of the cases are won by the author. As a defense for the trolls, it's common these days that many being sued have stated their "account had been hacked by someone"....therefore they had not authorized the message posts. If Mr. Brooks was anonymous himself...troll him as much as you want. Reality, Mr. Brooks is not anonymous...is a member of a medical society and owns a trading business that's legally registered and can then choose to file a defamation lawsuit if it has been stated as if fact or implied he has committed a crime or defrauded someone in which a subpoena is given by a circuit court to the website owner, ISP address and the ISP to reveal the identify of the forum member...revealing the identify allows the lawsuit to go forward. We usually don't here about this stuff until someone has lost their business, forced to change their lifestyle due to lost of income or they committed suicide/attempted suicide or a crime. Reality, trolling is not illegal although rude. I believe from reading online about many troll lawsuits that because Mr. Brooks is not a member of this forum and is not a sponsor...there's nothing he can do about Q3D because his reputation has not been harmed. In contrast, we could assume harm had occurred had he been a sponsor or active member of this forum. Thus, he could then sue Q3D for his negative commentary at this forum about Mr. Brooks...sued because of lost income here while as a sponsor via being trolled by someone posting false information or misinformation. Baron usually doesn't get involve with trolls here until they impact sponsors...basically until it impacts Baron's wallet. Simply, Q3D needs to hope Mr. Brooks doesn't become a member of this forum or Q3D doesn't post the same crap to Mr. Brooks facebook, twitter account or something like that because such is typically viewed by his clients. Anyways, I don't believe Al Brooks is a member of this forum and isn't aware of Q3D although Mr. Brooks does have some clients at this forum that Q3D has engaged with misinformation. P.S. Jurisdictions has a big impact on trolling lawsuits. Some states have new laws involving such while most do not. If you're trolling someone and that someone is not anonymous and your trolling is about what the person does for a living...you need to be smart and check with your local laws just in case one day you get sued. U.K. in 2012 was trying to pass a new trolling law although I don't know if the bill (law) was passed. The law involves preventing forum owners from deleting the content so that the troll can present (defend) the comments and provide proof that such was true if the troll gets sued. Simply, the person being attacked isn't asked to prove that the trolls comments are false. Instead, the lawsuit forces the troll to prove that what he/she has stated online is in fact true. Part of that involves using comments by other members of a social media site that have identified the member as a troll and to show that the troll had been warned about his/her posting habits by others. That usefulness is because some trolls argue via saying they were not aware that their message posts was defaming the person they were attacking or that their account was being used by someone else they had given approval to use (latter a poor excuse in my opinion...worst than the "my account was hacked"). ET is a social media site for traders. The new law proposal was designed specifically for "defamation" to go along with existing new laws involving cyber bullying that had already been approved. P.S.S. By the way, you can contact Baron about a case in the past here involving an ET member posting negative commentary about a trading website. That case got very nasty in which I believe the ET member identity had been revealed and was under court order to stop. I don't remember all the details but Baron was caught up in that crap. I believe Baron was involved because the posts were at his forum (Elitetrader.com) and that he had access to the IP address or info that would lead to the ISP identity and then identity of the poster. Thus, Q3D needs to be very careful especially if someone here at this forum starts sending Mr. Brooks links to his posting habits here at ET. By the way, Q3D had been warned about his posting habits towards Mr. Brooks in the past when he first arrived. Thus, he can not state he didn't know he had been trolling Mr. Brooks when its public documented about that from many members including myself telling him he is in fact a troll that's targeting Mr. Brooks with false information or misinformation. P.S.S.S. I'm not a supporter of Mr. Brooks. I've criticized him in the past but I do not troll the man nor do I need to post false information and misinformation about the man. Trolling is just rude but in some cases it will land you in court...legal fees and possible liabilities. Simply, be careful of whom you decide to troll. You paying attention Q3D ? Anyone can be sued...winning a lawsuit is an entirely different story.
Except the numerous quotes in his recent 3 books stating that the majority of trading today is computer driven. Why do you hate this guy? Serious question. You are going to say you can't trade these markets because of HFT? If a market goes from point a to b, you can make money on it if it is a significant move. The EURUSD had an average day range of 135 pips last week. That kind of range will always offer at least a few trades. You could just trade a higher frame if you don't like the 5. Al sells the five as his favorite, not a requirement for his readers. If you're wrong, take your loss and move on. Don't blame guys like Brooks. He charges far less than almost everyone else out there. Dude, Brooks is getting old, and maybe he just doesn't want the stress of day trading as much and decided to share his observations. That is my view. Day trading is stressful for many, including myself. As far as him being a guru or such, if he was trying to generate money for trading or to get rich teaching, he would charge far more. I spent more money on two months in a Pristine room years back than I've spent for all 4 of Brooks books and his video series, and I'm still gaining valuable info from him. And his Futures mag articles cost me nothing. I'm beginning to wonder if you really read his 3 recent books, or if you just glanced over them. Many of your statements don't seem to square, at least with my understanding of the books, and I spent real time reading them. I was very thorough (and yes, it was time consuming).
Very few people seem willing or able to put forth the effort. They think they are willing, they believe themselves able, and they will insist that they have done all the hard work, so it must be someone else's fault that they haven't succeeded yet. People generally do not want to take responsibility for their own lives, in my own opinion.