It seems like Tim couldn't handle all the negative comments on his site regarding Brian Shannon not posting RESULTS!! Doesn't show RETURNS, so you DELETE POSTS!!!??? They must be desperate for cash. BS said he has been trading for decades, but only gave one week of results -- unaudited. He used to beg for you to click on ads, sells his book reletelessly (if you have a great way to make money, you don't sell it for $70). Smoke and mirrors, folks!!! Listen, if you want $1,000 to teach people how to trade for one day's worth of rambling, I better hope you can prove you are not a fraud. Results are important, right?? Like a coach without a resume, a student without grades, the metric to judge....GONE. I might as well show results for a SIM for a few days, do a youtube video, and then sell seminars. TIM finally catered to such rational thinking that he had to delete it all. I am not saying either are frauds and either are bad traders, I just want to see results!!!!!!!!!!! When they hide, I wonder. If someone was to teach me how to play basketball, wouldn't i want to know if he was any good?? Isn't this what justifies the premium cost??

Brian Shannon and Tim Sykes is one big scheme. Where are Shannon's results? Where are Sykes results? Visit my site, click my ads, donate money and buy my book, but dont show us records. Dan Zanger at leasts shows audited records. I guess another scheme with Shannon and Sykes.

Stop posting without irrefutable proofs. Here is what I can say about those two mugs (any two mugs): the probability that they are both winning traders is 0.25%. The probability that at least one of them is a loser is 99.75%. Proof: 95% are losers, which makes the prob of any person to be a winner only 5%. If two guys, the prob for both to be winners is: 0.05*0.05=0.0025 (or 0.25%). In trading more is always less (except one thing or two things (name that one or two things)) including: 1. number of guys, 2. size of money. 3. number of component in your trading system... 4. etc Remember the rule: more is less in trading except with respect to ____ and ____ (fill the blanks). You see, my proof is scientific. No one can attack it with success, because it is based on numbers, not on who speaks louder, etc. PS: Both Tim and BS are in my view uneducated. My above proof shows that if they intelligent they would never partner if they were truly successful in trading, as the worth of two guys is less than the worth of one guy in trading. Remember this rule. It is so important and crucial. More is less in trading (except the above ...).

<b> the probability that they are both winning traders is 0.25%. The probability that at least one of them is a loser is 99.75%. Proof: 95% are losers, which makes the prob of any person to be a winner only 5%. If two guys, the prob for both to be winners is: 0.05*</b> timmmay is and has been top ranked on www.covestor.com across most metrics. never heard of the other guy its real, its live and its actual money at stake. where are your "rankings" RFT, or anyone for that matter?? this isn't some old worn out guru crap from 2003. surf

Number of one in the world, past, present and future. You do not believe. Then I am sure you never read RFT's financilatraders blog. Those who read it know well the danger of going against RFT! In addition: my argument above applies to any two mugs in the world. It is scientific proof. You can talk as much as you want, you will never defeat it, b/c it is the truth.

What was the probability that oil go from 147 down to 40 something straight? What was the possibility of a 100% retrace on the S&P from the after tech bubble? What was the possibility that LCTM fail? And on and on... In the financial world, 5-6 std dev happens. A 0.0025% event is a probable event, it's only 1 out of 400 events, a very probable thing. Oh and by the way, did you watch Tim DVD? If you didn't how can you say it's BS? I read the book, watched the DVD. IMO it's no BS. I'm no big fan of Tim but what he say's makes sense. It's only some very boring and unscallable trading.

doodi: you statement of 100% is false. Proof: post below is a counter-example to your statement. LOL! Why you do not do better: answer my question in post below. It will help you and help others. I can grade your answer, and correct it in case of any error. I know that I come across as arrogant. Please help me write otherwise.