Primary requests by newbie traders that didn't know such has already been done involving posting real-time trades or before the fact signal calls to validate whatever those they had label as a guru was talking about... Requests aimed at posters freely posting their trade concepts while being label as a guru because they are seen in the same likeness of a vendor. I will go as far as to say that ET members labeled as a guru are then treated worst than the typical vendor especially if the ET member refuses to post real-time trades regardless if the ET member has already done such in the past.
If one has been failing for two or five or ten years, I'd be likely to agree (mostly because if he hasn't figured it out on his own by then, it's not likely he ever will). But if one is new, and reasonably intelligent, it's not that difficult.
That's a good point. There's a big change in dynamics from "can it happen" to "it can happen" to "it happens for me".
The dynamics are a bit more involved. "Can it happen" implies that one is being lied to, or led astray, or a trick is being played, or a conspiracy is in full throttle (depending on one's level of paranoia). "It can happen" implies a lessening of the paranoia and at least some willingness to suspend disbelief, if not to jump on the bandwagon without reservation. There are, however, at least two courses to follow. One is to follow the guru or vendor or whoever who demonstrated that it can happen and hope that he can make it happen FOR me. This will not end well. The other is -- after being shown that it can happen -- a determination to study and find for himself the means by which he can make it happen for himself. This leads inexorably to "it happens for me".
Trading intelligence? The DOM represents the market in its purest form, but to trade the DOM only, one requires an acute memory for numbers. Standard intelligence, as we gauge it, has no bearing on trader success. Logically, mathematics graduates, have a propensity for the game.
The DOM may or may not "represent the market in its purest form" depending on how one defines "market". As for intelligence, regardless of how one defines it, I've never encountered a successful trader who was stupid. As to mathematicians having a "propensity for the game", I suppose that depends on whether the market is defined by math or behavior. It would be nice if it were math. That would be so much easier. And maybe even simpler.
As a filtering process, I would look towards maths graduates. It's quite obvious, and well understood, that trading intelligence is not solely attributed to an understanding of mathematics.
I don't see why people get so offended over the idea of live calls aka transparency. It's for the same reason an aspiring hockey player wants to watch NHL games, or an aspiring mountain climber wants to read about people who climbed Mt Everest, or an aspiring sales rep wants to see a seasoned pro in action.
I agree on everything you say- I just have not been able to figure out what you "do"- yet. And I want to just gain some knowledge from what you "do" not copy you, and yes I am always suspect- unfortunately. I use some Fisher's thoughts from the Logical trader, I don't copy anyone. Some parts just ring true to me and I am abl to remember and grasp easy and talk about.. What I want to lean is what exactly is your 50 percent measure, calculated from where to where and why ?