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

  #110 (permalink)

Super Moderator
London UK
Trading Experience: Beginner
Platform: CQG
Broker/Data: S5
Favorite Futures: Futures
xplorer's Avatar
Posts: 4,385 since Sep 2015
Thanks: 10,756 given, 8,962 received

bobwest View Post
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.)

I don't have any comments or experience about this specific vendors either. I agree with all Bob said, I just wanted to qualify the part of his comments I quoted above.

It is absolutely true that Vendor review threads should be based on actual, personal experience of those vendors, with one notable exception: when you come across a website and you uncover blatant or veiled attempts to either 1) mislead people 2) scam them by being deliberately crooked or 3) simply making claims that are not substantiated by facts in order to sell something (one could say this is a subset or a finer qualification of point 1).

If I come across those cases I tend to make it my duty to point out the incongruencies and I believe it should be everyone's duty to do so too.

Once, when I was very young and inexperienced I was scammed. The scam worth was the equivalent of a couple of hundred dollars so nothing huge, but it instilled in me a sense that the more inexperienced people, until they build a sensitivity for it, can easily fall prey to these scams. Pointing those out can make a real difference in people's lives.

One such example of websites intentionally misleading people is recorded in this thread.

Reply With Quote
The following 2 users say Thank You to xplorer for this post:
Page generated 2019-03-26 in 0.07 seconds with 11 queries on phoenix