If you had actually read Gallacher's book, then you would understand the reason for the outcome. How much suspicious evidence do you actually need to draw your own conclusions? If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck... And as I said, I have read some of Larry's materials. So I had a first-hand glimpse as well as an outside critical assessment. Doesn't it ever give you pause that Larry continues to rely on the result of a single "contest" many years ago? That is, after all, what you seem to fall back on every time. Let us imagine for a moment, since I'm feeling particularly generous today, that Larry did actually achieve the touted results in a fair and proper manner. It can only be regarded as a "skill" if he can do it again. Has he? If so, then why does he not use the results of these later feats in his over-the-top self-promotion materials? Why does he continue to rely heavily on a single long-ago event? Say, like a lottery winner who once went out on a limb by spending too much money on lottery tickets and lucking out, and then holding seminars for the next few decades on how to do what he did. Why does Larry not perform the miracle again so that he and his disciples would be vindicated and a whole new flock would come into the fold? You will recall that Larry reportedly took some crazy risks to achieve those contest results, even if you take what he says at face value. So if it is a teachable skill, let's see it again. And as for the "live" trading he does at his seminars, there appear to be far more first-hand accounts of tepid results and negligible profit sharing payouts than glorious and memorable performances. I refer both to first-hand accounts by posters on these boards as well as an article of a journalist's interview of actual attendees, which another member posted here some time ago. Do a search. I know, I know: "You should have been there last time!" Yes, mschey, please do talk to me about "pure propaganda," and "seeing only what you want to see." Just be sure to listen while you speak.
Why do you place so much faith in Gallacher? Perhaps, it's convenient that he confirms your pre-set ideas?? you seem to forget that Michelle Williams also won the contest. surf
Hello, surf. I see that you have turned on your answering machine. And as for Michelle, then why is she not managing money if she is so skilled? Or is there a genetic inability to manage money that runs in her family on her father's side? Oh, or because she's an actress? So, then, let's see what we have here. A dilettante trader who can win trading contests because she was trained by her father. Well, then, what about Larry's serious pupils who have devoted their lives to trading? How many of them have also won this contest? And what about Larry, himself? What keeps him from doing it again? Oh, I know. "He doesn't have to." Evidently, not. The money just keeps rolling in, because that's what dumb money does. And while we're at it, how many serious traders actually rely on, and refer to, trading contests? Soros? Cohen? I can go on. Heck, when was the last time your friend VN ever referred to a contest in establishing the credibility of a trader? Do tell. As an aside, I guess that Gallacher did "confirm my pre-set ideas." I ran across Larry's stuff and formed a less-than-favorable opinion before I read Gallacher's book . My assessment was my own, based on gut feel after being exposed to Larry's promotional materials. Gallacher's critical analysis just put a bow on it.
If Mr. Williams could consistently do what he did in 1987, without fatal drawdowns due to excessive risk, there would be no need for him to conduct trading seminars for a couple of grand a person.
She doesn't run money because she'd rather be an actress...DUH! There are many ways to earn respect. One is to make the most money, another is to win a trading contest. Not everyone has access to millions of dollars needed to make the kind of mony Soros, Cohen, and PTJ used to make their money. A contest allows the little guy a shot at the title.
He openly acknowledges the amount of risk he took.. however, he did open the door to new possibilities in the market place. If you ask him, he openly admits he does seminars for the money. I am one who believes that most venders are frauds, but Larry is one that passes muster for me. The litmus test is whether or not you make money with his material...I have...and hopefully will continue to do so.
I happen to know a little bit more about the mechanical systems Larry used to win in 1987 contest than most people do. I can assure you of two things: #1: The money he made was real, and the manner in which it was made is legit. #2: He happened to operate thru an extremely favorable period of time for his systems approach, and the use of highly aggressive money management worked in favor of those ideal conditions. Basically, Larry was trading volatility breakout systems in volatile markets. He caught some big moves, survived some big drawdowns and rode even bigger multiples into bloody October. From there the markets remained roiled, and the systems continued to work. If that exact-same system approach was applied thru 2004 or 2005, the result would have been dismal failure. Using those breakout signals and aggressive contract management would have drilled any account straight down into flat broke, busted. ** I personally believe it is possible to turn $10,000 into $1 million inside a calendar year. But... and that is a big BUT... there are a ton of variables involved. Favorable market conditions for the chosen trade approach is one. Gotta have prime market conditions to accomplish this, a variable no one controls. Stable emotional management as the numbers grow exponentially is another. The discipline required to accomplish such a feat as pressure mounts would be monumental. Durability of focus and concentration. The sheer mental and emotional fatigue from start to finish would be draining. The highs would be euphoric, the lows would be depressing. As for what Larry did? There are valid reasons what he did nineteen years ago was legit, and there are reasons why he has never done anything similar since. Hope this helps Austin
Oh, and how could I have forgotten? Does PTJ refer to trading contests in the taped interview that you have been bootlegging at $500 a pop? It is a life-altering tape, after all, right? *Sigh* Birds of a feather... Do give my regards to Larry the next time you see him.
I say lets all get together in Miami, in December, and have some Churros and Hot chocolate while we discuss Larry and Cholos. Sorry, I know y'all are serious, but I couldn't resist. Hey Surf The Ever Mood Lightening VIPER
Did you read the whole post that you quoted? If a mere dilettante actress/trader such as Michelle can win the contest, where are Larry's serious students in the contest pecking order? Why are you intentionally being daft? That's marketsurfer's shtick. And you're right about everyone not having access to managed money. Remember the fiasco that followed Larry's attempt to manage money? Although the government investigation that followed was not able to prove fraud, the necessarily alternative conclusion of gross ineptitude was fairly glaring. I don't mean to be rude, mschey, but do you actually need to be spoon fed?