He may very well not be a good trader , he can't reveal it .....or skeletons .So why should we discuss his reputation for good or bad.With an E A or system , one can back test the snake oil , but here nobody knows if these are just trading instructor Bernie maddoffs ! Credibility There is no evidence that these explanations are correct even if the price action trader who makes such statements is profitable and appears to be correct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_action_trading The scum that sell snake oil , mostly accomplices in marketing courses , actually hurt learners and their trading accounts , not only financially but in valuable time lost.The earlier these scum and scams get exposed , the more profitable traders will become.
Human brain is not wired to trading.......but changing wire setting does not make one profitable ..............................nor does buying any course . In a nutshell!
Thanks for the wiki link-- it confirms my contentions regarding the futility of trading in this manner.. surf
Seriously the best teacher . He really deserved his extremely high fees... He did not try to bambouzzle us about how great a trader he was. What was nice, he could prove easily how bad he was at it : statements after statements, all his various accounts. Very impressive to see how much money someone could lose in a lifetime. He was very philosophical about it. He showed us all the methods he studied and how he never managed to make them work. Very very instructive. hahahaha "Now the candlesticks... they say if you have this this and this, then you have a high probability trade... I traded it x years, and on all I lost yyyy amount of money...". Many times going back to his losing trades, and proving to us how he lost an account, etc... What was nice was that he really explained all the methods he used, how he was convinced it was a good one... and the losses. Seriously the best educator. And he made a point of illustrating what not to do, live for all of us to see. Now, most educators will tell you that they are great traders, after many many years are doing great, and will try to help you too by selling you a course or whatever. But never ever will trade live and show their trading account live over a period of time. I would not be astonished that many critics of combine are trading educators. And of course will find many escuses not to do it. The thing is even losing traders can teach you something : what not to do. It takes huge humility to tell it like it is. Going to give another shot at the combine. Really very good business concept.
oilfxpro, I have to say you have a really good understanding of this trading business. I fully agree a course will not make you profitable. At best, show you how one can fail. And the Madoffs in trading education are plenty. the wiki link is a gem.
What good is a course if they keep telling you what not to do , and not what you should be doing to do highly profitable trading? A good course will lay out the structure of profitable trading , not what you should not do.
Whatever the reason , new traders should keep away from snake oil paddlers.Price action p/a on lower time frames is more difficult to implement , it is more difficult than day trading .................... http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=220746 http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=218977 The implementation of price action analysis is difficult, requiring the gaining of experience under live market conditions. There is every reason to assume that the percentage of price action speculators who fail, give up or lose their trading capital will be similar to the percentage failure rate across all fields of speculation. According to widespread folklore / urban myth, this is 90%l. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_action_trading Price action trading is psychologically difficult to implement http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=236978 Technical anylysis and price action fail , and I can show thousands of examples of failures http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=248499 http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3668652#post3668652.
Extremely so. In fact, once you fully understand the concepts of technical price action trading, research the positive expectancy price environments and setups, develop rules for entry, risk management and profit-taking, develop fixed rules for implementation of all this, apply the fixed rules to months or years worth of data and are satisfied that after slippage and commissions your system has a significant edge and produces consistent profitability thru varying market conditions, I'd bet that there's a 90% chance you'd unable to trade your system manually by the rules, and if you automate it, I'd bet there's a 90% chance you'd be unable to let your system run without interfering with it. This has nothing to do with the trading method; it's all psychology. Yes, every technique for trading experiences failures. Trading is a game of probabilities, not perfection. You can find profitable methods of trading where the successful trades outnumber the failures, or you can find profitable methods of trading where the successful trades produce larger average gains than the failures' average loss, or both. In my nearly three years of technical price action trading, thousands of my trades failed to produce a minimum profit target. This has not been a problem at all because technical analysis of price action revealed to me how to manage my trades so that the average gains are larger than the average losses. This TA revealed to me how to make full stop-out losers a tiny percentage of my trades. So the fact that sometimes this method produces full "failure" of an individual trade is meaningless. Technical analysis of price action tells me when the chance of a profitable trade has diminished to the point that it's more logical to exit without a profit (break even) than to keep holding and risk the full initial wager on the trade.
>>Technical anylysis and price action fail , and I can show thousands of examples of failures. If you accept the argument that 90% of all would be traders fail and this failure rate is evenly distributed across all trading methodologies than the fault is not with the perceived strengths or weaknesses of any method but merely a recognition of the difficulty of trading. Your experience with any trading method is determined by your class. Are you part of the 90% or part of the 10%. Is it possible that in the 10% there are individuals that would find success with several methods as well as those who can only trade profitably using EW or mean regression or PA? In the 90% are there individuals who will never find success as well as those who just haven't yet discovered what it will take for them to succeed? All that anyone can say is that a particular method did not work for them, not that it does not work at all. After all, any attempt to trade using any method will result in failure 90% of the time.