Alan Rich new scanner

[BeginnerJoe]

I agree with Joe.
I'm going long now ...when it gets to 2445....i'll exit

Huh ? You go find your own entry. You ain't got the right attitude for my entry.

 

[Lord Flasheart]

This is purely a tactic to diversify the thread and its main issue

 

[counter_violent]

Huh ? You go find your own entry. You ain't got the right attitude for my entry.

I'm trying to help your trade along Joe....remember, once you enter a trade, you can't influence the outcome. You need others to trade it up from here so that you make a profit...got that ?

 

[BeginnerJoe]

I'm trying to help your trade along Joe....remember, once you enter a trade, you can't influence the outcome. You need others to trade it up from here so that you make a profit...got that ?

Ahhh, you are too kind. I entered cos I thought someone was trading it up, and not cos of the call out, or that you were going to help. I may well exit if no action arrives.

 

[barjon]

Hare

My apologies for answering within the body of your quoted post and for choosing Socco purple to do so

jon

Yes it can



This is difficult isn't it. I for example knew a great deal about MM and position sizing way before I was anything like profitable, and probably knew a lot more than I do now. If that's the case, then just maybe its OK if some says I am not profitable, I have no idea if the stuff that I teach works, or is useful, but I charge X. I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with someone teaching a method, provided they have a couple of years of forward testing to back it up. Systems sold on back tests are a non starter, systems sold after 2 months results are a non starter. That should be obvious.

Yes, and I wouldn't have a problem paying you for teaching me MM so long as you could show me that it was a valid method for my trading and it wouldn't much matter if you yourself were profitable or not. My due diligence in those circumstances would be consulting with those who you had taught to find out if it was all valid so far as they were concerned. So I'd expect you to put me in touch with real ones!!


This depends on the number of people involved. If its just the odd person being taught then yes, I would expect them to do it for free. Other professions mentor for free. I have an aquaintance who mentors half a dozen or so guitarists in various locations across the globe. He covers all of his own travel and accommodation costs, sometimes flying hundreds of miles and taking days out of his schedule to teach.

The same guy also charges extremely hefty rates for private lessons for those who do not have the ability conduct or merit, but he also sells instructional dvd's etc. Ive witnessed this particular musician turning down tens of thousands in ticket sales to play an additional night simply because he'd already committed to holding a workshop in the upstairs room in a pub for maybe 30 guys.

That sort of makes my point, the hefty rates he charges in no way diminishes his ability as a teacher/mentor. Not a lot in this world is free and I'd certainly expect to pay for good teaching/coaching/mentoring. Good being the operative word of course.

Another musician friend was mentored from an early age by a well know American jazz musician. His mentor paid for his college education at Berkley, and covered the costs of his family visiting whilst he was studying in the USA. He probably "invested" hundreds of thousands of dollars into a complete stranger. I'm sure there are no shortages of examples if you care to look.

As soon as you start offering mentoring or tuition to a larger client base, charges have to be made. However, the current set up puts all of the risk on the punter.

Why cant a vendor be compensated in some other way ? For example, rather than handing 5K over to a vendor , why cant I deposit 10K into an account, and allow that vendor to trade under power of attorney during the time I'm being taught. If the vendor can walk the walk, a year down the line they've made themselves double the fee, and I as the punter have confidence in the mentor and the method.

If the mentors full of bull ****, they get nothing, and the punter loses only part of what they would have lost

Its win win but you wont find a single vendor taking up such an offer. Offer em 10K, 100K, 1M, 10M they simply will not bite

Yes, but that is predicated on the assumption that those who can't trade successfully can't teach. I think that assumption a little doubtful. In many other spheres there are many examples of inspirational teachers/coaches who are no better than adequate in the practice of what they teach. Their higher skill is in the teaching, not the practice.

 

[DionysusToast]

Andibet,your sort of backing down here chappie.come on mate you've opened up in ARs defence so I think you should prove it. Were really not asking for much. ill happily pay 2.5k if its proven to have an edge and save me many long stressful hours

A scanner cannot have an edge. A scanner can only find potential opportunities. If it had an edge, it's buy & sell for you.

Trading is a skill & it requires experience. You can't teach experience. One of the reasons people fail at trading is that they flit from one thing to the next without getting experience in anything.

Now - people can teach you about trading but they can't teach you how to trade, only experience can do that.

Of course, you know this already...

 

[DionysusToast]

in answer to this. not backing down but i have a job to earn money for my family.

second i really wouldnt pay 2.5 k for a scanner when its free with ig index or alpari. and i will happily show you how to do it, BUT NOT IN TRADING TIME.

if you trade for a living you would know what i mean.

there, does that prove im not a shill?

No - but if you are right that Alan is selling a free scanner for 2.5 grand, it does prove something about him..

 

[barjon]

............Now - people can teach you about trading but they can't teach you how to trade, only experience can do that............

I mostly agree with that, but I think people can coach people how to trade at least to the extent of giving them a good grounding. I have said in earlier posts that I would happily pay you to train or coach me if I felt the need, but whether I could go on to replicate your skill (or exceed it, heaven forfend ) and match your results would depend on things beyond your control as a coach, including my lack of personal experience in the way that you trade.

 

[The Leopard]

Well, basically for the reasons I went through in my post.

Firstly, I would pose the question: Do you think trading can be taught and/or trained and/or coached?

If the answer to that is yes - and if it can't be then it's about the only professional activity I know of that can't be - then who is to do the teaching, training, coaching? And do you expect them to do it for free, or get some financial reward for their services - even if it's just compensation for their "lost" trading time? (1)

Of course, there are many charlatans about, but surely not all. (2)

From what I have seen (and assume I did further "due diligence") I would happily pay flash or toastie for coaching if I felt the need. And it wouldn't make much difference if they had turned that activity into a business or not. So because they then become training vendors you would tar them with the same brush as some of the well known sharks that have been exposed? (3)

Apologies for the delay in replying Jon. I'll answer the points you raise above and then say why I think my position is logical a little later when I have time.

(1) It depends rather upon what you mean by this. I would agree that it is possible to teach people certain skills, techniques, concepts and principles. I'm not aware of anyone who disputes this.

Now teaching someone to be a profitable trader is a very different thing of course - that I think needs to be learned, rather than taught, and experience is the real teacher there. Of course, a mentor or coach can have a positive impact during this stage of the learning process.

Is there anything wrong with charging for training? No, if people wish to pay for it, and the teacher is teaching something valuable. Many do not teach anything valuable (quite the reverse) but that is not relevant and does not harm your case in any way (nor does it strengthen mine).

Trading is of course very different - crucially different really - from most 'professions' because of the role played by emotion.

(2) I agree there are many charlatans about. Again though, that does not harm your case (nor does it strengthen mine).

(3) That situation would be very different to to the typical ones - Mr Spreadbetting, TTs, K2A and so on - for obvious reasons. Would it affect the quality of the training, or invalidate it in any way, if you offered or they insisted on payment? Of course not. If Castro claims that a chair is a chair, and gets Hitler, Stalin and Mao to back him up, it is still a chair regardless. The training either has value or not, regardless of whether consideration is paid.

 

[barjon]

..........Now teaching someone to be a profitable trader is a very different thing of course - that I think needs to be learned, rather than taught, and experience is the real teacher there. Of course, a mentor or coach can have a positive impact during this stage of the learning process............

I absolutely agree with that and it is, I think, the crux of the matter. More or less covers the same exchange as with toastie above. A sort of "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink".

It follows that a vendor who sailed under the banner "I can teach you how to trade, but it'll be up to you whether you can make money from it" should not be tarred with the same brush as one who sailed under "You'll make £10,000 a week with my teaching"

I don't dispute that nearly all the advertising we see from vendors is pretty squarely in the second camp, but a blanket tarring is unfair to those who explain it as you have done to their students.

 

[The Leopard]

Well, basically for the reasons I went through in my post.

Firstly, I would pose the question: Do you think trading can be taught and/or trained and/or coached?

If the answer to that is yes - and if it can't be then it's about the only professional activity I know of that can't be - then who is to do the teaching, training, coaching? And do you expect them to do it for free, or get some financial reward for their services - even if it's just compensation for their "lost" trading time?

Of course, there are many charlatans about, but surely not all.

From what I have seen (and assume I did further "due diligence") I would happily pay flash or toastie for coaching if I felt the need. And it wouldn't make much difference if they had turned that activity into a business or not. So because they then become training vendors you would tar them with the same brush as some of the well known sharks that have been exposed?

I stated that it is logical to tar all signal sellers, system vendors and educators with the same brush (I excluded those who sell 'tools' - Toast being an example - as I think it is fair to say that that is, potentially at least, a fundamentally different activity).

What is the nature of this brush, and this tarring? Briefly, in my opinion they are unable to make money from trading, either because they have failed, or even never attempted, to do so. They therefore turn to selling instead.

If I may, I will look at vendors in two parts. There is much overlap between the two types, but I think it will be simpler to address them separately. First, system and signal sellers, then educators in a later post.

Why would someone sell a system or signals? If they do not work, they would do so because that is the only way that they can make money from them. Clearly nobody would be interested in paying for signals or systems that did not work, and of course it is never claimed that they don't (rather the extreme opposite in fact, in most cases). That would of course be plain dishonestly, and they would merit a generous tarring with my very broad brush.

Why would someone sell a system or signals that do work? Clearly, it cannot be for money. The only limit to the amount that one can make from such systems or signals is liquidity. Therefore if one encourages other traders to take these same signals (either provided or generated by the sold system) one is reducing the liquidity for one's own trading. This does not make sense, as one would make more money by using this liquidity to increase one's size, rather than selling the ability to consume that liquidity for a small amount (typically £100 a month, or a few hundred to a few thousand for a system).

The liquidity must be worth more than the price of the system or signals (it must be possible to make more money from it), otherwise it is dishonest to sell them, for the purchaser will not have the opportunity to make more than he has paid.

In other words, it cannot if one is honest be more financially beneficial to sell (or enable via a sold system) people to sell X ES or EUR/USD at Y price at Z time than it is to simply trade that signal oneself having built up one's account to take maximum advantage of generally available levels of liquidity.

Put simply, if you can trade, you can make more money trading your signals than selling them for a pittance to other people to trade.

What if one feared that the system or signals would only be effective for a short time (or some such similar circumstance)? Again, one would simply be dishonest in selling such things, unless one made it very clear that their life was limited.

Some people defend these vendors by saying that they provide something and deserve to get paid. They do not need the money, but they want recompense for their trouble and expense. Of course, this is completely illogical given the above.

There cannot therefore be any sound financial reason for selling profitable systems or signals, especially for small amounts to the general public. There might just be a case for it if one could approach GS and get a lump sum off $50 million off them, but of course that is not what we are talking about, and even then the same logic would apply.

So why charge for signals or systems that work? It simply does not make sense.

If money is not the reason, what then would motivate the honest system seller or signal provider?

The other main reason given is that they wish to "help people", "give something back", "do some good" etc etc etc.

This might appeal to the would-be trader, who likes nothing better than the idea of the benevolent success story kindly helping his successors up the ladder. But surely a moment's consideration must reveal this as being highly illogical.

If one truly wished to do good works, this is hardly the way one would go about it. If your systems or signals are good, and you sell them, you dilute the liquidity available to you. Your customers who are consuming it will use at least part of their profits to buy luxuries - the large house, Rolls, boat etc that you presumably already have. They might then go on to do some good works with their money, but having lots of people using the fruits of this liquidity to load up on luxuries is a very inefficient way of doing the good that is apparently so important to the altruistic system or signal seller.

Better by far (if good deeds are one's motivation) to trade oneself to the maximum limit of available liquidity, and use the excess for charitable and other good works. After all, the buyers of your systems are hardly likely to be terribly needy, at least relative to most of their fellow creatures.

For example, assume a profitable trader who makes a million pounds a year from his system. He is good man, but a normal man, and he spends let us say half of this on himself, and the other half he gives to charities. He determines that there is ample liquidity in the market to make an additional 20 times this amount.

He does not need the money (he already gives half his earnings to his preferred charities) but he is desirous of doing more good in the world. What does he do? Does he increase his size until he is making £21 million a year, distributing £20.5 million to worthy causes?

Or does he sell his system / signals to 20 other people? Assuming they are fairly normal, they might take half of their million a year, and give half to good causes (not necessarily ones which he would support of course). That would leave only £10.5 million for good causes, with £10.5 million going to support the luxury lifestyles of a small number of traders.

The 'nice guy' argument is therefore just as illogical as the financial one.

In conclusion, there is simply no logical reason why someone would sell profitable systems and signals in the way which we are discussing . Therefore it seems to me to be perfectly logical to tar all such vendors with the brush I mentioned at the start.

The situation is slightly different with educators or trainers, but I have a few other things to do at present and will address that type of vendor later.

 

[the hare]

It follows that a vendor who sailed under the banner "I can teach you how to trade, but it'll be up to you whether you can make money from it" should not be tarred with the same brush as one who sailed under "You'll make £10,000 a week with my teaching"

That depends if the person making that claim can do what he says he can. To use my earlier analogy, the 2 musicians I cited in my previous post have international reputations, and its a straightforward process to determine they can walk the walk.

Trading is a very different ballgame. I trade the same random based system with a few brokers, and surprise surprise, I get different results. The biggest discrepancy I've seen was something like a 180% annual gain with broker (a) v a 16% loss with broker (b). Nothing to do with the broker or data feed, just an inherent part of trading with systems that utilize an element of diversification.

If I'd decided to tout for mentoring business that year, which statement do you think I would have promoted ?

Vendors establishing multiple accounts and trading essentially random systems until they get a decent enough track record really is the oldest trick in the book. A great example of this is the famous Larry Williams competition win that he's been dining out on for decades. He made an 11,000% return over 3 months in one account, whilst losing close to 6M in his other accounts. Sites such as zulutrade, collective2 etc are awash with vendors pulling this con and of course some of them market themselves based on very conservative and perfectly realistic expectations

Now lets factor in the case of the vendor fooled by randomness, he thinks he's developed a genuine edge, that seams to work, but its random chance ! Last year for example I had a random system that did quite well, and amazingly every single winning trade was taken when price was outside of a 55 period 2 standard deviation bollinger band applied to a 15 minute chart. If I wanted to waste a couple of hours I could probably find another 100 rules in retrospect to explain the results, and I have absolutely no doubt I could probably sell several thousand copies at a couple of grand a pop. If I did that, it would be fraud, and its still fraud even when the supplier is offering the product or service through genuine ignorance.

This stuff is far from cut and dried, and the simplest solution, and the optimum solution is to tar all vendors with the same brush.

 

[the hare]

The liquidity must be worth more than the price of the system or signals (it must be possible to make more money from it), otherwise it is dishonest to sell them, for the purchaser will not have the opportunity to make more than he has paid.

One of the best posts I've seen at the zoo.

Just to play devils advocate what if the system is based on random entries, and therefore other users are not necessarily competing for liquidity

 

[The Leopard]

One of the best posts I've seen at the zoo.

Just to play devils advocate what if the system is based on random entries, and therefore other users are not necessarily competing for liquidity

It would require something of a shift in marketing focus, would it not?

Instead of:

"Secrets...special indicator...big boys in The City don't want this method to get out...89 Nazi boxes only...years of research gone into it, 90% strike rate...(continued for 12 yards of internet text on a single page)...5 grand please"

We could have:

"Enter at random"

Somehow I don't think the marketeers would go for it.

Neither would the mug punters - they do like their Wall Street magic indicators and insider secrets.

 

[D70]

Hang on guys.
Let's get back to bashing the hell out of Alan 'scammer' Rich.

 

[barjon]

...................I stated that it is logical to tar all signal sellers, system vendors and educators with the same brush (I excluded those who sell 'tools' - Toast being an example - as I think it is fair to say that that is, potentially at least, a fundamentally different activity).

What is the nature of this brush, and this tarring? Briefly, in my opinion they are unable to make money from trading, either because they have failed, or even never attempted, to do so. They therefore turn to selling instead.................

.

I think there is a massive distinction between signal and system vendors and educator vendors. We have covered the educator one in part with exchanges just prior to this and it is roping those in with the others in the blanket tarring that I think unfair.

So far as systems and signals are concerned I, too, believe they are useless and that sellers are peddling dreams to the gullible. It's slightly different with methodologies though. People like bbmac, captain currency, flashy and others have been pretty free on the boards here explaining a methodology and I would think that if they sold it then buyers would have something fairly reasonable to work from whether or not they were able to trade it profitably.

I would think that there are plenty of methods being sold out there that provide something similarly reasonable. It is not necessarily essential for someone selling such a method to be a successful trader themselves or, indeed, to be a trader at all. Sometimes it's just a question of drawing the threads of a method together - by interviews with successful practitioners for example. Of course, there remains a difference between those who market a methodology as "a basis to work from" and those who market it as "profits guaranteed".

Some may sneer at any methodology, of course, but I've satisfied what I want from mine for over thirty years and when Marc Rivalland started selling something similar via his first book I wouldn't have been disappointed had I bought it nor would I have written him off as a charlatan for vendoring.

 

[The Leopard]

I think there is a massive distinction between signal and system vendors and educator vendors. We have covered the educator one in part with exchanges just prior to this and it is roping those in with the others in the blanket tarring that I think unfair.

So far as systems and signals are concerned I, too, believe they are useless and that sellers are peddling dreams to the gullible. It's slightly different with methodologies though. People like bbmac, captain currency, flashy and others have been pretty free on the boards here explaining a methodology and I would think that if they sold it then buyers would have something fairly reasonable to work from whether or not they were able to trade it profitably.

I would think that there are plenty of methods being sold out there that provide something similarly reasonable. It is not necessarily essential for someone selling such a method to be a successful trader themselves or, indeed, to be a trader at all. Sometimes it's just a question of drawing the threads of a method together - by interviews with successful practitioners for example. Of course, there remains a difference between those who market a methodology as "a basis to work from" and those who market it as "profits guaranteed".

Some may sneer at any methodology, of course, but I've satisfied what I want from mine for over thirty years and when Marc Rivalland started selling something similar via his first book I wouldn't have been disappointed had I bought it nor would I have written him off as a charlatan for vendoring.

Indeed there is such a difference. And of course I agree, it is not necessarily the case that a person must be a profitable trader in order to teach others either useful skills or indeed mentor them all the way to profitability.

We both make the distinction between the two types, and I believe that it is perfectly valid to do so. I am conscious that I picked the easier of the two (from my point of view) to begin with. I should in the interests of fairness say that T2W generally gives pretty short shrift to the systems / signals wallahs.

I'll try to address these issues and others in post specifically about educators.

 

[The Leopard]

From what I have seen (and assume I did further "due diligence") I would happily pay flash or toastie for coaching if I felt the need. And it wouldn't make much difference if they had turned that activity into a business or not. So because they then become training vendors you would tar them with the same brush as some of the well known sharks that have been exposed?

So far as systems and signals are concerned I, too, believe they are useless and that sellers are peddling dreams to the gullible. It's slightly different with methodologies though. People like bbmac, captain currency, flashy and others have been pretty free on the boards here explaining a methodology and I would think that if they sold it then buyers would have something fairly reasonable to work from whether or not they were able to trade it profitably.

It is true that flash, bbmac, toast and others have posted many things of interest and value.

 

[Lord Flasheart]

The main reason I am against mentors is that what can they really teach you. I would happily take up coaching if I thought something of value could be gained from it. Sadly if I did this then I feel I would be in the same boat as AR etc. I could show all my methods with detailed explanations,make calls,give great advise about MM etc,yet the guy would still walk a way clueless once on his own. I dont know why some of my lines and pullbacks really work. I cant teach what my subconscious mind is saying after years of screen watching etc.I could do a months worth of live calls and be 100s of pips down for the month.I could make 5 great 100 pip calls,but what would the guy really learn..
Having said that I did think about hiring a room putting in 10 dual screen comps and charging £200 for a weeks live training. That would seem like value to me and I couldnt see how anyone could not feel they got good value for something like that.

 

[rsh01]

I'm still day trading after 14 years and I still really enjoy it.

In trading you need an edge, I think I've just found one.

You say this strategy has been developed over the years (and no mention of any other strategies/edges) so can we infer that as you 'just found' an edge, you were trading without an edge for the previous 14 years?

Boy you have patience. And to find one after all this time, and immediately you want to share it with us. You are a beautiful person.

(Bit late to this thread, sorry to digress from the latest sub topic and excellent posts mainly from the hare / the leopard)