if some one charges for their method, it means that the method has not made themselves rich, and that their method does not even work for themselves.
That's a simplistic perspective. If I have the blueprints for a machine that costs me $10 and 1 year to build, and afterwards putting in $1 gives me $1.10 every year, and I can sell you the blueprint for $5 and let you build it yourself, I just saved myself years of waiting.
you see there is no comparison to trading, there is no comparison to amount of money, you can make if you know what you are doing...most vendors logically should spend their time trading than wasting time teaching UNLESS they make more money in teaching
in trading if you put in 1usd you take out 1usd per day or a lot more. i am not sure you can compare it to anything
Too many retail traders think about the money, dollar here make a dollar there, never see anything about risk? They seem to be in constant dreamland, they lack knowledge of knowing the probabilities of their patterns to know what the past outcomes were on large enough of data. They think of how to get in or why they should get in first. And yet they never learned the basics of charting-and those who say they can do in six months, tells me they only have six months of learning some charting. The didn't break down charts to smaller amounts of data, down to each bar, and yes 100s of patterns based on one bar and charting to the left of one bar, and yes, much of it is much work to get next to none of "edge", but some of it does when combined with more bars after current bar. I enjoy when traders post charts, often thinking why did they get in there? Too often they don't have enough of bars to left to see whole picture or have not done any study of distances of swings. My main concern is can I reduce losing percentages lower and not go with most profitable as they usually have ragged drawdowns, if I am losing less, can increase size and continue to average down on any timeframe.
You are assuming infinite greed, which is not necessarily a correct assumption. For example, I have an algorithm that weekly returns $1K on $50K. In order for me to double that, I need to raise another $50K. I can sell the algorithm or bring in investors, but the net result is the same: I get more money without having to wait around for $50K capital due to trading profits. After all, if my trading was so good, I could just fund myself! Then why do hedge funds exist? With self-funding, you can double your income in about 1 year and take 100% of it. Bringing in investors, or selling the algorithm, you can double it in a week or six months or whatever while simultaneously continuing to raise your own profits. So maybe you only take home 60%. But compounding starts earlier. All I'm saying is that I can foresee a point where I'm tired of developing new algorithms and would like to teach others. Everyone isn't a loser, though I think the guy in this video is. He only traded for 8 years. That's nothing.