jimbo57 said:I hear what you say Bush, but trading is first a question of survival, then gaining - the more energy that is spent pursuing this bozos, the less there is available for more gainful activities.
Unless like Zenda you want to assume the mantle of 'crusader', whatever the motive, then best to just ignore, and treat them like the spammers that plague us all.
Buswhiz said:What is simple is being ever so complicated - it all revolves around veracity. If the seminar is based around untruths whether relating to the course content or to the credentials of the presenter then that to me is a scam. These lies or however you wish to couch them must be deliberate and not exaggerated claims - which then involves a question of degree.
For the former they need to be vilified and if i am not mistaken made subject to civil and criminal law. The latter should be subject to proper regulation by an independent body and taught how to tow the line.
That is how it should be.
trendie said:Having defined scam, how does that affect Zenda, Winters or Secker, then??
They do nothing other than TEACH about trading.
Adn just because they entice you in with examples of what "other" students have achieved, doesnt mean "you" will be capable of emulating.
If that were the case, just about every Oxford or Cambridge student could sue their teachers because they couldnt think like Hawking or Newton.
Or every possessor of a word-processor could sue Dell on the grounds that owning such a device didnt help them write block-buster novels like JK Rowling.
fxmarkets perspective is perhaps the best one so far, in that htese people are marketeers, and are selling seminars, not selling trading nirvana.
Anybody going to a 3-hour seminar, and then signing up for a multi-£1000 course without first getting comparative quotes or conducting due diligence, or allowing themselves a cooling-off period are tragically the same kinds of people who:
1: agree to pay cold-callers from Bermuda £X,000s for shares in companies they never heard of, cos they are going to make a fortune,
2: give their bank details to nigerian princes
I agree some element of rules are needed to protect the unwary, but it is a personality trait you are describing. The problem is the person. They shouldnt be allowed out on their own.
There are NO guarantees. But nobody wants to hear that.
Wasnt there a case a while ago when share-holders wanted to sue the government because their shares in Marconi or Railtrack had lost value?
I am sorry, but, some of these people, are simply greedy, and get whats coming to them. The tragedy is that the £3,000 they spend on courses is less money that ends up in my account.
WARNING: The coffeee cup may contain hot liquid.
Excellent summary - the 2 problems are:trendie said:htese people are marketeers, and are selling seminars, not selling trading nirvana.
I agree some element of rules are needed to protect the unwary, but it is a personality trait you are describing. The problem is the person. They shouldnt be allowed out on their own.
KimmrunnerKIMMRUNNER said:Interesting thread!
A major league problem in trading "knowhow" is that most of the so called standard texts on trading are also complete tosh and would therefore have to fit the category of "scam"
Take one of the standard texts on TA, and try to backtest most of the ideas contained in it, over substantial length of time and you begin to realise that there is a lot of myth and folklore in standard TA which has become accepted simply because it has been repeated so often: it
is wishful thinking for the most part.
Take standard moving average crossings: I defy most of these expert writers to show me
any successful long term back test on schemes based on crossings, whether of
two or many averages of closing price:
IMHO most standard TA is a scam, and should be barred - since this is the first knowhow that novice traders trip over (assuming Goldline didnt get them first!!) And I think it is reliance on this sort of stuff that ensures that novice traders lose money. Small surprise that the spreadbet companies will let you superimpose most of this TA on
charts - because they know it wont help!!
( By the way - I thought the accepted industry statistic is 80% lose, not the 90% quoted earlier in this thread, but it is still pretty frightening.)
Just a thought
Charlton said:Kimmrunner
Yet how often is this ratio backed up by proof ?
Charlton
Pippppin said:the word "scam" seems to be rather misused on this thread - just because you do not agree with something does not make it a scam
For Charlton to state that Pareto's law is a scam shows both his/her ignorance, and misuse of the English language
The actual % may or may not be 82%. It may be 70% or 90% and I would hope that anyone in the industry that quotes these percentages would be able to back them up with the relevant statistics. With regard to Pipins personal attack I am fully aware of Pareto's Law or Pareto's Rule. Rule or Principle is perhaps a better term than law, because it does not have the same character as, for example, a law of science.KIMMRUNNER said:Forget which thread, but there was a post by a manager at one of the spreadbet companies on one of these boards a while ago that confirmed the number for his organisation in particular - think he said 82% - and then commented this was pretty much the industry average reported by the futures contract exchanges. Not proof, but what interest would have been served by him distorting the truth??
Charlton said:However I don't think this is any excuse for calling a complete stranger ignorant, which unfortunately is a direction this board often takes nowadays
Charlton
timaru69 said:So with all this in mind what makes a good mentor? What attributes are required before somebody is considered, in general, to be a good mentor? How can these be defined when everybodies perceptions may be so different.
I posted on another board a week ago, regarding the psychology of buying trading schemes,
and was quite AMUSED to be told that (a) I knew nothing about psychology ( how would he know?)