Most people who sell books, trading courses or charge for mentoring are not good traders. Some even admitted it. But that doesn't mean they don't add value. We can still benefit from reading books, or attend a classes or paying for mentorship, just don't expect a miracle.
I'm going from memory but I liked how Elder said, "don't have an opinion on the future of market direction" and "try to learn tell what direction the market is currently going". Having a chart with no indicators sounds like that. I also liked, minimizing market exposure to 1% to 2% of your account was something he talked about as well (a light came on here, especially after blowing up a few accounts over the decades) What @Captain Caveman said makes sense, though I never thought Elder's books would ever let me quit my job tomorrow (didn't judge the book by the cover). I did hear it was a book worth reading, so I did and I enjoyed it. It did not tempt me to join spike trading, but I still liked the book
i see this is an old thread but thanks for this. I am just reading the book and was considering the group. Would you be so kind to at least hint at what the main reason is they perform so poorly?
I still liked the book. I would imagine if you find the interviews of Peter Brandt in Chat with Traders you'll probably get a hint on why the group may not be successful. Peter says his winrate is only 40%, he makes most of his money from 5% of his trades, he audited 40% annualized returns. Can a normal person's psyche handle a 40% winrate making most of their money on 5% of their trades? I don't know
Thank you, I am a bit confused since I am just starting out and am not confident with terminology. Isn’t a win rate a % of winning trades out of all trades? So 5% in his case? Or are you saying that he is exhausting same stocks over and over?
Well a plus 1% is a win, but with traditional trend trading one BIG move can make most of your profits for the year. Find the Ed Seykota's "Wipesaw" song on YouTube