Dude. Their methods either have no edge or there is no method that can be systematically defined. If it can be defined and it has no edge then it still has no edge even if you follow it perfectly. The "psychology" bullshit is overrated and used in the "trading education" industry to downplay/distract from the fact that the method either doesn't exist or simply has no edge. It's very hard to come up with a significant edge.
No one has Edge. I hate the word 'edge' in trading. You either have skill and experience and intuition and tactics -- or nothing. Edge kind of implies you have a guaranteed, supernatural advantage to trading and winning divinely. But we're all just simply gambling. and hoping in the end it works out for us. Nothing more to it, or less to it.
No, man, the brokers and data providers are generally legit and well regulated and enforced well against by CFTC/NFA/SEC. Yes, they cater to customers who 90% fail and they know it but what can they do? Do you think they like losing 90% of their customers every two years however long an average "active trader" retail account lasts? Are they supposed to give them a trading edge? The analysts suck but they're not promising good analysis. They just say here's our analysis - take it or leave it. There's no scum in the retail trading industry like the "educators".
It looks like you are not someone who would do whatever it takes to become very good at trading. Now, it seems you hoped that the "lazy" road, aka just watching a trading educator would get you there. As you have now learned that is not enough. But now, you seem to be at a stage where you feel defeated in regards to trading. Other traders went the path of finding out everything they could do, to turn their fortune around. For some reasons they did not dismiss any advice without checking it thoroughly. Strangely, they are now profitable. Different approaches to becoming profitable, different outcomes.
I know you wanna ride your high horse but this is neither here nor there. As I posted earlier whether the victim is dumb/lazy/greedy/not as cool as you/etc he's still a victim and fraud is still fraud.
There are plenty of edges, it's just that most people use the word improperly. If I own a bunch of gas pipelines and have an insight into gas flows I have an edge when trading gas. If I figure out that there is some publicly available information buried somewhere about the number of trains leaving North Dakota and can use that to correlate with crude flows I have an edge. Or if I figure out that there is a correlation between the number of Google searches for "Tylenol tampering" and Johnson and Johnson stock price I have an edge. For a long time trading a U.S. based open end fund indexed to European or Asian indexes based on big moves in the U.S. market that happened after those markets closed but before the U.S. market closed was a quantifiable edge. On the other hand, spotting a head and shoulders pouring a teacup and laying on a broken wing iron condor eating a butterfly as a result isn't an edge, it's apophenia.
pursuit : many here, myself included, have paid handsomely these "educators". Many here, have also spend a lot of time with these "educators". First : without these "educators", how would the masses find out what is trading about ? or what are the practices in some Wall Street/City/HK/Singapor trading desks? Second: why did you believe that just watching "educators" or following their courses would be enough to turn you into a profitable trader. A profitable trader can make more than the regular 5k/Customer , this without the marketing hassle. If these are teaching, two cases - they are profitable, and for whatever reasons, they are putting out there their trading. We should be grateful to be able to have access to their trading for just 5k. - they are not profitable.Here again, the public can gain, by taking copious notes of why they are not good at trading. Again : some people do try everything to become very good at trading, someothers have their own idea of what the trading path should be. at the end of the day, what counts in trading is your trading profits ($$$). Different trading paths, different outcomes. That's life, and it's actually very fair.
Every broker/charting provider provides basic information on the instruments offered and some kind of a beginner's primer. A scammer educator does not offer any valuable information beyond that. Again, no, the public doesn't gain anything from a scammer educator who doesn't offer a trading method with an edge even if the public "takes copious notes". Again, no, fraud is not fair. You seem to lack some basic logical reasoning so I'll cease interacting with you.
hahahahaha. Hope you keep trading and become profitable sometimes. Then you might understand better why you still don't get it.
How are you defining "scam" and "fraud"? Every legit trading school charging money comes with a written agreement on what expectations should be. The terms of the agreement should be clearly stated as to what you can expect to get from the class or series of courses. I doubt any of them are putting in guarantees that taking their course will make you a successful trader. The terms usually are that trading is high risk and past performance of instructors or former students is no guarantee of future results. Based on those terms, you would be hard pressed to call it a scam if you took a course with that agreement expecting anything beyond that. Now the "scam" companies are the ones who advertise in a way that makes it seem like trading is easy or a quick path to riches, but this type of "sell a dream" advertising is widespread for all industries. Look at commercials for other colleges, lotteries, alcohol, food, homes, phones, credit cards, travel, etc.. and you see them selling transformational joy with the use of their product. In a strict sense of truth, all of them could be taken to court based on misleading advertising. Look how education in general is sold that having a college degree is the ticket to success only to still find many graduates experiencing unemployment/underemployment and high student loan debt. This is really about managing one's expectations. We know the odds of sustained trading success are 90% against at best..some say 95% or more. So for those who take trading courses even from legit schools, the success rate should be expected to be very low. If your expectations are the course should give you a guaranteed edge that works, unless they put that in writing, you are expecting too much. The market is an open system where players can change behavior based on new information- so there can be no widespread taught "edge" because the system will absorb it. Outside of teaching you basic trading mechanics and methods that worked in the past, it's up to the student to develop their own insight into what works to make it out of the 90%+ failure zone. The same applies to all schools: sports, business, acting, cooking, etc.. None of these places likely have written guarantees you'll reach top pro levels no matter what they show in advertising. It's always up to the individual to find that inner special talent that helps them move to the top levels. To expect more than that is being unrealistic. Trading, like the other jobs listed, doesn't have a fixed framework of steps one can take to guarantee arriving at the top. That means education classes or books can only take you so far.