Since we're all speaking in the abstract, as no names have been mentioned, what would you make of someone who, hypothetically, posts calls based on, say, a price motorist system, the nature of which he discloses not at all but often encourages readers to trade the calls? Continuing in the hypothetical, let's say he only posts entries, almost always after the fact, and then tells his avid readers to figure out their own exits. Not that any thinking reader would act on such unexplained calls or any other for that matter, but to then not provide even an idea of a protective stop as context of the call's time frame, when to the reader it's strictly a black box call, seems doubly irresponsible, wouldn't you say? We're just spitballing here, so I'm curious to know what you would make of such a hypothetical. A general impression will do.
I see loads claiming to be expert, posting huge P/L, but never actually posting a entry or a exit at all, even an entry would be good, if price goes 20 the right way generally from a entry that would do me, exits are tricky things. Don't follow ET that much recently, so no idea who the scammers be these days, few old 1's I suspect ofcourse.
what would I make of it? Get a life man. Might as well ask, "Do those high pressure hoses they sell to wash your car and aluminum siding on paid programming on late night tv really work?"
This reminds me of the "short Shake Shack" proclamation thread on April 25th because it tastes so bad. No price action mentoring was used.
Today I was so bored, I even clicked on a MS thread although I have the guy on ignore. He is bitching about mentors although not a trader. Then why? ET's viewership won't increase by these fake MS threads... I will check back in a week...
The irony of it all is that a couple of simple "price action" tools - namely a trend line and the recognition of higher highs and higher lows on SHAK would have kept MS from shorting SHAK. Price action might be a better way to trade or make public calls than a bad dining experience. Just saying.