Early heads up, but this will undermine your credibility. Because you're not posting real-time trades with price and time, which is a high bar of accountability, the presumed success of your trading method can only be judged by the blotter. Those blotters could be faked (as Rearden Metal demonstrated in the past) but most people would be willing to trust what they see. However, if you don't provide a presumed-objective blotter every day, you then have the discretion to hide days during which you lose money. So the minimum bar of accountability hasn't been met here.
I have no problems with it, Surf is always welcome as are all critics and even trolls (as long as moderators allow them ). I believe arguments only make us stronger and refine our knowledge and confidence.
That'd be my suggestion, to head off the inevitable skepticism. Of course, that alone is a rarity for journals with calls, so there's that.
I appreciate the suggestion and will post empty blotters indeed as well as whole week/month continuous blotters. Actually I liked RM's idea about asking some trustworthy person to check credibility of claims, if we only could find a decent mechanism.
Huh? This is support, not harrasment. I was tired of him making ridiculous claims, on my journal, that 20% annual returns were not even worth trying for, sick of him scoffing at 20% annual returns when most traders would be thrilled to earn 20% on the capital deployed. If he wants to say these things elsewhere, I have no issue with it, and I applaud the attempt to "prove" TA. Just wanted to make sure its played fair as, as you know, everyone who has tried over the last decade has FAILED including the latest attempt on twitter just several weeks/months ago. surf