Hello NoahA, Well said, I agree. And this is what I mean @NoahA. I know you are a trader and your time is beyond precious and you probably have your own trading method and trying to be consistent trader yourself. I am not going to waste your time inviting you anywhere to show you a trading idea that I am making money and I can not prove it. If I can not show you my live real money trading record of +1 year like I show below, I should not be wasting your time. So, look at my record below, do you want to come in a room with me and let me show you something about trading? Your answer should clearly be, HECK NO, you not a winner trading. It is more respectful, if I say "NoahA, I am not a profitable trader would you like me to show you a trading idea I am working on that can help you out, but I have no proof the trading idea work yet" Its called respect for people time and energy.
I have no interest in his algo or zoom meets etc. 99% win rate, dunno anything about that. Looking at his charts, I can only guess what he's doing, I have a hunch how his algo operates/coded. If he's talking about a high win rate, I'm guessing he's talking about a theoretical sim win rate, knowing that it's not practical in real life. He's mentioned numerous time it's a guide only as he trades discretionally, ie, he uses it as a template for trading signals.
But I sure as hell wouldn't be on ET broadcasting out of the love of my heart my system. Your reward for that is copping it in the neck from hecklers.
You have no interest, and don't know anything about his win rate, so why the heck are you even commenting in this thread without knowing the facts? These two screenshots are his own posts. This type of performance is simply unheard of and absolutely unrealistic. You're defending him without even being aware of his claims, and worse, blaming people who have been scammed by him.
Hello NoahA, That is not sim my friend. That is real money. Noone on ET should be posting no damn SIM trades.
Fuck off, who the fuck are you, I'll comment whenever I like to express an opinion. Now it's you talking pure bs!
Oh crap, my apologies. In your pic, I saw Sim, but now I see the checkmark is beside where the account number would be. Ouch. Well the solution is obvious. Your average winner just needs to be bigger than your average loser! LOL.... I know this is no way helpful. Are you scaling into losing trades? It seems like you're up to 20 contracts on some of those trades that end in big losses.
I've noticed on ET, anyone who thinks different, who has a way out trading method, all the clowns come out and poke fun. The point being, if you're different from the mob with their moving averages, it pays to stfu.
The big tipoff here is this: MNQ 450 Tick Range Bars Account Size = $750 Margin is set to $550 per Contract (way more than needed) Purposely set to trade a Maximum of 4 Contracts Per Trade NO - Backtesting Required Trading Time is from 6:30 am to 10:30 am - Pacific Time Zone 10 Days This is just outright ridiculous. First of all, whoever wrote the algorithm had to test it to make sure it executes properly. That's one backtest. Secondly, the idea behind the code didn't just pop out of thin air. The OP had to make certain observations in the market, set it up and see if it was feasible to make a profit. Third, the performance reports he posts, although just a few days, can be considered a backtest, albeit too small to pass judgement on the quality of the code. In other words, whatever the algorithm is, backtesting would be a requirement. Making the statement that no backtesting is required simply says the guy hopes you'll fall for it. Perhaps he doesn't use conventional backtest engines on platforms like Ninja or TradeStation. But I doubt it. I'd make a bet in Vegas that he did substantial backtesting with every update of the algorithm. Only a fool would run a strategy live or waste time in sim without substantial backtesting while modifying and correcting the code. Developing and writing code requires continual backtesting to ensure viability of the idea as well as the programming. That's how a scientist looks at it.