It is not that I am missing the point but that I don't agree with it. Handing out names of successful systems to people will not be to anyone's benefit. This is of course my own opinion and many may disagree. Part of being successful in any trading and in just about anything else in life is doing some work and figuring things out for yourself. Researching and learning to evaluate good systems is equally as important to overall success as is finding and implementing such a system. Just because most of the good system vendors I know of don't advertise doesn't mean they are impossible to find. Research will quickly lead you in the right direction once you understand what to look for. I agree with you that developing your own methods and writing your own systems is ultimately the best way to go but many people don't have the skills and/or time to do so. 99% of all of the discretionary techniques and methods out there don't work either so I don't see why you think it would be any different with systems. A good system is the same thing as any good trading technique but just put into code form. I realize that nothing I say will change your mind and that is fine with me so I will just leave it at that and refrain from posting on this topic anymore.
My sentiment precisely. One difference that comes to mind is that a purchased system is, more often than not, an uninspired method that may cost thousands of dollars. Another issue is that people who wish to buy systems generally wish to circumvent the time and effort required to learn how to trade. Predominantly, though perhaps not exclusively, they want to be told what to do. If that is indeed the case, then how would such people be able to distinguish these "good" systems from the rest?
The problem with FuturesTruth is that it is a for-profit enterprise, thus substantially biased and subject to conflicts of interest.
FYI, this site compares 150 commercially available trading systems by tracking the outcome of every recommended trade: http://www.collective2.com/ It's more than a bit suspicious, however, that there are several systems showing 100% accuracy. (BTW, I'm not in any way affiliated with this site.) --Tim