KongZanaTrading live room plus strategy | Trading Reviews and Vendors

futures.io - futures trading strategies, market news, trading charts and platforms

Trading Reviews and Vendors

Discuss and review vendors of commercial trading products, trading rooms and services, trading indicators or third-party paid add-ons


KongZanaTrading live room plus strategy

  #109 (permalink)

Market Wizard
Sarasota FL
Trading Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NinjaTrader, Sierra Chart
Favorite Futures: ES
Posts: 4,582 since Jan 2013
Thanks: 34,350 given, 15,172 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary

There may be no point in jumping into this controversy, but I'll just add a thought or two and then bow out.

First, I have no idea whether vk is legit or not, and it isn't anything I'm going to spend time on. There are many, many vendors out there. Some are fair to good, some are lousy, some are fakes. Maybe some are even very good. I am not looking for help there, and don't care one way or another.

Second, this is a vendor review thread. So, anyone with an opinion would contribute more if they had actually tried the vendor's product, and had good or bad things to say based on real experience. No experience = no value. I apologize if any of the critics do have real experience that I missed, but I wouldn't want to use someone's opinion that didn't have something in their own experience to back it up.

Third, I do agree with the general idea that most vendors are worthless, so I do think it is right to have a very high level of skepticism about all claims. It is also perfectly good to challenge any claims, in the sense of asking for actual validation. "Validation" could, for me, include that someone who is known on the forum has used it successfully. This comes back to the experience question. I would also say that the perfectly reasonable attitude of skepticism needs to be governed by the limit of someone's actual experience. So just saying that something is definitely a "scam," just on the general principle that all vendors are unreliable, is going further than the person's actual knowledge.

(Also, "scam" is about being deliberately crooked. That is not the same as not having something that is not really valuable. One is similar to an accusation of a crime; the other is simply the -- usually correct -- observation that they don't know anything. There is a big difference.)

Fourth -- and I'm finally getting to my point -- personal stuff about known forum members is not useful, period. Unless you really know something about them, and then you should PM @Big Mike and let him handle it. If someone is a shill for a vendor, then, according to the rules, they should be banned. Mike does that when necessary. So if anyone thinks this is the case, Mike should be informed. He will want some evidence, however.


Now, as to cases, @sharmas has been around here for a while and has not been credibly shown to be a shill for this vendor, or any other I am aware of. He does post in a journal, and explains the trades, and lately they seem to be based on this guy's "system." I would take his charts and explanations as showing that he is using it. I am not going to trouble myself about whether I should use it, but who cares about that? And who cares about whether anyone else should?

It is not helpful to be slamming people whose only fault may be that they believe in a vendor's product that you may not, for good reasons or bad. This is a vendor review thread, so it has people's opinions of vendors in it. If there is no reason to think that someone with a positive comment or review is lying, it is wrong to assert that they are. And any such assertion, like the assertion of "scamming," is an assertion of wrongdoing that needs to have evidence.

We should be civil here. There are bad people and bad vendors. So what? Attacks without evidence are not justified.

I'll bow out now. Whether this vendor is any good is not my fight. But civility in the forum is.


Reply With Quote
The following 9 users say Thank You to bobwest for this post:
Page generated 2019-03-26 in 0.08 seconds with 11 queries on phoenix