I did try once in a while to stop some noobs from spending thousands of dollars on some courses. The way I did it , was to teach them whetever course they were ready to pay for, I asked them to practice a good 6 months, and then ask them to find out - how many traders are actually profitable. Not a percentage, but a hard number - why traders fail. For some reasons, they seemed to always hate me for crashing their dreams of quick road to riches
You'll find 2-3 years closer to reality. Did you get through your last advanced math course in 2-3 days?
A new sucker is born every minute ,no need to convince them , so if forums put trading education threads in permanently visible places , there will be plenty of noobs for scamming.....just like forex factory had sticky threads for James 16.
Seems to me that forexfactory has now moved into the porn business. Trading being just an entry door. May be they now have some deals with some brothel owners or promoters. For noobs, I think it is important that they realise trading takes time. It is not a quick road to riches
Sorry what does getting a math course comparable to a trading course Are these comparable and in which way
Trading price action the way Al Brooks teaches in his book/course is similar to taking the algebra, trig, and calculus of price action scalping. He starts from an intermediate level and works to a very advanced level. I now trade in a way that's even more intricate than the stuff his book/course covers because I continued to hone the methods I learned from him. I may be really slow, because it took me over two years to get to where I am now and to fully understand every concept in his book.
Seriously this is a bit exagerated. I do believe that EVERY trading course would teach a student something... but comparing this to a math course is completely exagerated. If I was to advise a student between taking a degree in mathematics or taking a 2-3 years course of AlBrooks, I am sorry, but I would advise the student to take a math degree. I think it is completely immoral to compare trading courses to mathematics degrees. One can say, they like the course : fine. One can defend a course : fine. But no need to make completely irrelevant comparisons. Also, not every successful trader trades chart patterns at La McGhee Style ( no matter how the names are changed) combined with candlesticks at La Steve Nison ( no matter how simplified or the names are changed). Then add to the spagetti bolognese, some Elliottwaves at the candle levels 1-2-3 then 1-2 , and once in a while throw in some 50% fib retracement extensions... and add the cheese of 1 indicator ( moving average), and now you can add more cheese with 3 indicators ( 3 moving averages). Et voila! There are many ways to skin a cat in the market... hmmmm... I am thinking : every trading educator should have a go at the combine. What about that? I have to say, I am at my demo-combine number2 as I failed the first one.
If those p/a methods worked , you would be a billionaire at $100 per pip , averaging 30 pips daily .I have my reservation to learning from unsuccessful traders ,who have to scrounge for a living from non trading activity.
There are 4 video's on the site you can look at for free. You will get an idea of how he is presenting the material.
I believe every underfunded student should have a go at the combine. If you're ill-prepared, the constraints of that combine environment will reveal that quickly and will provide you with the hoops thru which you must be able to jump to have a shot at being consistently profitable; if you're well-prepared, the constraints of that combine will reveal whether you have mindset issues that must be overcome. Even long-time experienced traders who use the sorts of methods that well-funded professionals use will fail the TST combine. It's the sort of trading environment that every small retail trader must master to succeed. I find it to be a fantastic tool for showing an aspiring trader the incredible complexity involved in short term trading with a small account.