Can you tell me what your entry and exit prices were and your target for those hourly trades. Do you use the same method on your hourly as you do for your daily trades?
Is anyone familiar Andrew Mitchem - the forex trading coach? online forex course
- Thread starter john fisher
- Start date
- Watchers 54
Can you tell me what your entry and exit prices were and your target for those hourly trades. Do you use the same method on your hourly as you do for your daily trades?
Lord Flasheart
Legendary member
- Messages
- 9,826
- Likes
- 985
good trading so far Andrew. Can you please refrain from telling us what you did and more as you take them. Wed love to see some examples of the intraday trades.Thanks
also i don't believe he's putting the stops in quite the right place. they look to be set right on levels, imv they should be placed further away, the theory being that every man and his dog will be putting pending orders in that area. sooo it should follow that the stop has some form of buffer from the pending opening orders, and is less likely to be hit if set further away. but andrews stops were mainly set right in there to get hit. well, it's a discussion point, if nothing else
This is a valid point and deserves some investigation. Presumably Andrew has done this already (back testing), and I expect the findings point to the momentum of the move to be stronger than pull backs to higher fib levels.
traderman1
Active member
- Messages
- 228
- Likes
- 18
By my calculations, you have a success rate of around 55% of trades over three weeks.
Maybe Andrew Mitchem would like to try again this week to improve his win ratio?
traderman1
Active member
- Messages
- 228
- Likes
- 18
I am not seeing anything to convince me that he has an edge. As you say, 3 weeks is very short, but his win rate is very ordinary so far.
Please explain what you think he is doing and I will backtest it.
Lord Flasheart
Legendary member
- Messages
- 9,826
- Likes
- 985
his ratio is 2:1 that makes 50% excellent so far,lets leave him to it for a few weeks
TheForexTradingCoach
Junior member
- Messages
- 19
- Likes
- 1
You have got to be joking, look at your charts today. Who would trade short time frames with massive weekend gaps on many pairs and a US public holiday. Can you see any clear direction for today because I can't ?
Sorry but apart from looking at any opportunities to go long against the JPY I am not taking any intra day trades for today.
I made some good money last week, I see no need to lose any and post trades just to keep you happy here !!
A 55% win rate at 2.5 - 3.0 : 1 R:R is more than adequate to make good money with very low risk on the Daily charts. Believe me I've been doing this for many years.
Sorry but apart from looking at any opportunities to go long against the JPY I am not taking any intra day trades for today.
I made some good money last week, I see no need to lose any and post trades just to keep you happy here !!
A 55% win rate at 2.5 - 3.0 : 1 R:R is more than adequate to make good money with very low risk on the Daily charts. Believe me I've been doing this for many years.
On his website he shows he is using bollinger bands, engulfing/outside bars, hammers and fibs. He is basically looking for engulfiung candle patterns on the daily and then just drawing the fib levels on that candle, to enter on a retrace at 38.2, sl between 78 and 61.8, target fib expansion 38.2, or if the engulfing candle is strong 50 fib expansion level. Simple stuff but its nothing new.
what more do you want?
Lord Flasheart
Legendary member
- Messages
- 9,826
- Likes
- 985
what he said hed do, he posted a few trades that were ahead,thats all he did,what about all is intraday methods he boasted about.He came on the thread boasting about all the pips hes made after the event. He at least started well and did make some calls which is more than most
Bint_Crusher
Established member
- Messages
- 728
- Likes
- 33
Still a fat posing knacker then
david_louisson
Newbie
- Messages
- 2
- Likes
- 0
Hi folks,
My first, and possibly last, post on this forum. By way of introduction, I’m 50, married, and live in New Zealand. Software development has been my career since I left high school back in 1979. I’ve also dabbled in forex trading since 2007, which is how I met Andrew Mitchem. It’s no secret that Andrew has been a friend for around 3 years now, and also that I wrote some of the software that’s sold as part of his forex coaching course.
I can easily relate to the skepticism that’s been posted in this thread. The forex world is rife with snake oil vendors, and in my early days as an aspiring trader, I fell victim to some of them, purchasing worthless EAs and signal systems.
Andrew’s friendship has lasted partly because I believe that he is different. In my opinion he’s a very disciplined forex trader, and has certainly been profitable throughout the time that I’ve known him. Like other traders that I correspond with, he has good weeks and bad weeks; but the good significantly outweigh the bad. That is exactly what one might expect from a robust methodological ‘edge’.
Secondly, all the videos on Andrew’s site, and the reviews on Forex Peace Army, are all written by clients who’ve paid for Andrew’s course, and are genuine and unsolicited. Like many of you, I’m skeptical whenever I read testimonials, especially where they have a ‘too good to be true’ ring to them. If I didn’t know Andrew personally, I might easily feel the same way.
I’ve watched this thread unfold, and I’d like to comment about some of your posts. Somebody suggested something like “let’s see how well Andrew performs over 20 trades”. Then Andrew posts a couple of live calls that happen to be winners, and suddenly there are “he might actually be a real trader” responses; then there are a couple of losses and it’s “see, I told you he’s a fraud”. Given these comments, I feel led to ask how many of you understand what might reasonably be expected from a trading edge. I’ve written many EAs (automated traders) that have sequences where 15 out of 20 trades are winners, and then — when market conditions don’t suit them — 15 out of 20 trades might easily be losers. To evaluate the efficacy of an ‘edge’, I believe that we ideally need to see the results of several hundred trades over many years of changing markets; to whatever extent that this is lacking, we run the risk of being “fooled by randomness”.
Secondly, mathematical expectancy (or ‘profit factor’) is the product of not only winning percentage, but also average win size. In other words, it’s possible to be profitable with a win rate of less than 50%, because the winning trades outsize the losses. Many successful trend following systems (like those made famous by Richard Dennis’ turtles) use that very principle. One EA that I wrote takes ‘low risk’ intraday entries, where the stoploss is only 10-20 pips away from the entry, but then it looks to capitalize on long moves on the daily/weekly charts. Due to the tight stoplosses, it has a win rate of around 30%, but I get some 10:1 and 20:1 RR trades that more than compensate for this. If you looked merely at the win rate over a 20 trade sequence, you’d likely be very disappointed. Yet to date it’s been the most profitable EA that I have in my arsenal (none of which are for sale, btw).
I see comments here from folk who have apparently watched a video on Andrew’s site, and claim that his strategies have been copied. It’s true that elements have been assembled from other folks’ ideas, but there are only so many ways that it’s possible to trade (e.g. with the trend, or countertrend; long term, or short term; etc), hence every trading methodology is likely to contain similarities with others. What the video doesn’t show is some of the more subtle nuances that Andrew uses, e.g. choosing which pairs to trade by analyzing individual currency strength and weakness; correlation; session considerations; how he handles high impact news announcements; limits his total exposure; and so forth. As with many successful discretionary traders, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts; and the way in which the parts are weighed up and fitted together is ultimately key.
I likewise used to believe in the maxim that “those who can’t trade, teach” (or sell EAs and systems). More recently I’ve come to understand the value in having a second income that comes from outside of trading, i.e. diversification. Trading generally provides an erratic income, but (thanks to the ability to compound using fixed fractional MM) offers the possibility of exponential growth. A second, steady but unspectacular, income can be useful for ‘filling in the gaps’. In other words, they complement each other well.
There have been some comments that Andrew’s course is expensive. I’ll end by asking what somebody who knows nothing about forex should be willing to pay, for the possibility of attaining financial freedom. Forex is essentially a zero sum game, where those who have knowledge and experience eventually take all the money from those who don’t. Hence I view trading as the pinnacle of capitalist, entrepreneurial endeavour. Sure, spending money on a mentor, in the hope that it will reduce one’s learning curve, carries a level of risk, but in an ironic kind of way whatever you do in this industry is risk-oriented. The best one can do is perform as much due diligence as is humanly possible. And regardless of the amount spent, it ultimately comes down to the student’s ability to apply what has been taught, with the necessary dedication and mental discipline.
As for what prompted me to post this, I’ll merely say that Andrew will likely be just as surprised by its appearance as you are.
Finally, an off-topic comment to Lord Flasheart: I’m a big Blackadder fan (have the complete DVD box set), and I agree that some of Rik Mayall’s lines in the episodes ‘Bells’ and ‘Private Plane’ are among the best in the whole series.
Good luck, folks, I wish you all the best in your trading endeavours.
David Louisson
Hamilton, New Zealand
My first, and possibly last, post on this forum. By way of introduction, I’m 50, married, and live in New Zealand. Software development has been my career since I left high school back in 1979. I’ve also dabbled in forex trading since 2007, which is how I met Andrew Mitchem. It’s no secret that Andrew has been a friend for around 3 years now, and also that I wrote some of the software that’s sold as part of his forex coaching course.
I can easily relate to the skepticism that’s been posted in this thread. The forex world is rife with snake oil vendors, and in my early days as an aspiring trader, I fell victim to some of them, purchasing worthless EAs and signal systems.
Andrew’s friendship has lasted partly because I believe that he is different. In my opinion he’s a very disciplined forex trader, and has certainly been profitable throughout the time that I’ve known him. Like other traders that I correspond with, he has good weeks and bad weeks; but the good significantly outweigh the bad. That is exactly what one might expect from a robust methodological ‘edge’.
Secondly, all the videos on Andrew’s site, and the reviews on Forex Peace Army, are all written by clients who’ve paid for Andrew’s course, and are genuine and unsolicited. Like many of you, I’m skeptical whenever I read testimonials, especially where they have a ‘too good to be true’ ring to them. If I didn’t know Andrew personally, I might easily feel the same way.
I’ve watched this thread unfold, and I’d like to comment about some of your posts. Somebody suggested something like “let’s see how well Andrew performs over 20 trades”. Then Andrew posts a couple of live calls that happen to be winners, and suddenly there are “he might actually be a real trader” responses; then there are a couple of losses and it’s “see, I told you he’s a fraud”. Given these comments, I feel led to ask how many of you understand what might reasonably be expected from a trading edge. I’ve written many EAs (automated traders) that have sequences where 15 out of 20 trades are winners, and then — when market conditions don’t suit them — 15 out of 20 trades might easily be losers. To evaluate the efficacy of an ‘edge’, I believe that we ideally need to see the results of several hundred trades over many years of changing markets; to whatever extent that this is lacking, we run the risk of being “fooled by randomness”.
Secondly, mathematical expectancy (or ‘profit factor’) is the product of not only winning percentage, but also average win size. In other words, it’s possible to be profitable with a win rate of less than 50%, because the winning trades outsize the losses. Many successful trend following systems (like those made famous by Richard Dennis’ turtles) use that very principle. One EA that I wrote takes ‘low risk’ intraday entries, where the stoploss is only 10-20 pips away from the entry, but then it looks to capitalize on long moves on the daily/weekly charts. Due to the tight stoplosses, it has a win rate of around 30%, but I get some 10:1 and 20:1 RR trades that more than compensate for this. If you looked merely at the win rate over a 20 trade sequence, you’d likely be very disappointed. Yet to date it’s been the most profitable EA that I have in my arsenal (none of which are for sale, btw).
I see comments here from folk who have apparently watched a video on Andrew’s site, and claim that his strategies have been copied. It’s true that elements have been assembled from other folks’ ideas, but there are only so many ways that it’s possible to trade (e.g. with the trend, or countertrend; long term, or short term; etc), hence every trading methodology is likely to contain similarities with others. What the video doesn’t show is some of the more subtle nuances that Andrew uses, e.g. choosing which pairs to trade by analyzing individual currency strength and weakness; correlation; session considerations; how he handles high impact news announcements; limits his total exposure; and so forth. As with many successful discretionary traders, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts; and the way in which the parts are weighed up and fitted together is ultimately key.
I likewise used to believe in the maxim that “those who can’t trade, teach” (or sell EAs and systems). More recently I’ve come to understand the value in having a second income that comes from outside of trading, i.e. diversification. Trading generally provides an erratic income, but (thanks to the ability to compound using fixed fractional MM) offers the possibility of exponential growth. A second, steady but unspectacular, income can be useful for ‘filling in the gaps’. In other words, they complement each other well.
There have been some comments that Andrew’s course is expensive. I’ll end by asking what somebody who knows nothing about forex should be willing to pay, for the possibility of attaining financial freedom. Forex is essentially a zero sum game, where those who have knowledge and experience eventually take all the money from those who don’t. Hence I view trading as the pinnacle of capitalist, entrepreneurial endeavour. Sure, spending money on a mentor, in the hope that it will reduce one’s learning curve, carries a level of risk, but in an ironic kind of way whatever you do in this industry is risk-oriented. The best one can do is perform as much due diligence as is humanly possible. And regardless of the amount spent, it ultimately comes down to the student’s ability to apply what has been taught, with the necessary dedication and mental discipline.
As for what prompted me to post this, I’ll merely say that Andrew will likely be just as surprised by its appearance as you are.
Finally, an off-topic comment to Lord Flasheart: I’m a big Blackadder fan (have the complete DVD box set), and I agree that some of Rik Mayall’s lines in the episodes ‘Bells’ and ‘Private Plane’ are among the best in the whole series.
Good luck, folks, I wish you all the best in your trading endeavours.
David Louisson
Hamilton, New Zealand
Last edited:
The Leopard
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,877
- Likes
- 1,021
Make it the latter, there's a good chap. There's more than enough shills / liars / halfwits (delete as appropriate) on this site already.
That comment was really not necessary was it.
T2W has to be the worst trading forum for idiotic useless, half wit comments I have come across. There is so much negativity bouncing around I'd suggest if you are a losing trader then you'd be wise never to venture here, and try to avoid forums at all costs because all you will learn from most of the people who comment in them, are what useless individuals they really are. They are individuals who could not identify good from bad advice if their life depended on it let alone string together a constructive intelligent comment.
The Leopard
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,877
- Likes
- 1,021
Of course the comment wasn't necessary. On the other hand, it was wise, good-natured and kind, not to mention public-spirited.
I agree with you entirely about forums. If you're trying to learn you are certainly better off giving them a wide berth. That way you will avoid idiotic posts, nonsensical opinion, and of course predatory vendors and their sock puppets, who would happily con you again and again until you have nothing left for them to take.
Fair comment. So why aren't you using Andrew's method yourself? And if the method as you suggest is copied or has elements of which are copied then why the obscene waiver of tort on his terms and conditions:
"Waiver of Tort
Waiver of Tort - The Client agrees that should he/she violate the terms of this agreement, the Client stipulates that the agreed upon fee for each trespass on this agreement, as described above, will be USD$500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Dollars US$), which will be due and payable within 30 days of billing, upon proof of trespass. Further, the Client agrees that if the trespass fee is not paid within 30 days of billing by the Company, the Client authorises the Company with a Specific Power of Attorney to place a lien on the Client's personal and/or business property and/or to liquidate such property through sale or exchange to satisfy such trespass fee(s)."
I very much doubt that this paragraph has any legal relevance whatsoever. The judge, presented with evidence of similar methods given freely on various trading educational sites, would laugh at the possibility of someone being sued for $500,000 by someone selling the stuff to others which is available for free. Civil law looks at what is reasonable, this waiver of tort is wholly unreasonable and I'd consider it to be an absolute joke to be honest.
Similar threads
