I have a history of questioning many of the resident gurus on the Board who teach elaborate systems which nobody (well, less than 10%) claim to even trade profitably. When I do so they get really mad at me instead of just proving their system (via Live Calls, or on the PnL Thread, or by posting their blotters on their own thread). If they did so, curiousity satisfied, I would be more than happy to STFU). So, why is that? Why do Gurus get mad when you ask for proof?
The flip side is, why do you care? Are you attempting to buy a system or pay one of these guys to teach you to trade? If the answer is NO, then why do you care what they do or don't do? If the answer is YES, then I agree 100% with your premise.
I care because I want the proof. That's an honest an answer as I can give you. Seriously. If you are going to present a trading system to the public as working and making money, please don't get mad at me when I ask you to prove it. :eek:
For the time being, it appears that Alex has a viable business going and he is (in all likihood) making a lot of money from it. For the purposes of this thread, I don't include him in the list. I am referring to the Gurus on ET who claim to be teaching a susscessful trading system for free, but decline to prove it when politely asked. Such as Jack Hershey A Disciple Questions the Master And ProfLogic Does it work or doesn't it? (But feel free to post about him [Alex] if you must, LOL - I really don't care either way).
I believe it's because they don't know "how" to provide proof other than their backtests, which we know what the problem with that is. 3rd party verification is where the real burden of proof is contained. Looks like we won't have that proof for at least several years. On Jack Hershey's script I discovered the 14,1,3 method stochastic was ideal with basic entries and exits provided in his description. The WL version I created I submitted to futurestruth.com to be independently verified over the next several years. It will take a long time to discover it's viability, not the least of which is the fact that after cursory optimization from august 08 to now, the real value for ES contracts should be somewhere around 30,000. It worked out of sample as we added three more years onto that backtest and was profitable. I am going to optimize on ES continuous contracts for the last six years, then let futurestruth.com incubate for as long as I live. They stated the current version was "somewhere in the middle of the pack." Which doesn't surprise me. Anyway, I believe after an incubation period and a couple years of profitability we will have proof of at least my particular version of the system. ETLurker I believe found a more robust version, however. On me, I'm just going to say that's why I tell people to be on collective2 in the first place. Or timertrac, which I actually dislike enormously because of the lack of handling of limit and stop orders vital to any swing trading system, especially a timing system.
But if you aren't getting the proof you desire despite repeated requests, isn't it safe to assume the person in question is either a liar or is crazy? Makes it easy to move past them and on with ones life. We all want things but there is no sense in beating a dead horse when it's clear you will not be given that which you seek.