Right, but the law of large number and money says that many would still apply it in different manners would lead to different results. Therefore, I advocate to judge whether a vendor was able to be a building block in your knowledge. One could have used 1/20 and still get further ahead from where he was before.
There is a request to finally teach a system that works under all circumstances, all weather conditions.
look at the last request on this thread, this is where he expects 50% of the students to make money off the system. If this is what most of the trading community wants, then we have a huge problem and no vendor in the world would be judged right.
@Jedi, I truly respect your practical view but I come from a different school.
My school says learn the ropes and apply it your way that fits your temperamental attitude and risk capital.
For the record, I am not in favor or against futures.io (formerly BMT) doing this vendor section. This is not my site therefore I don't add feedback as far as it's future vision. All I want is for things to be fair the way I view them if the section implemented.
PM with any questions about optimusfutures (800) 771-6748 (561) 367 8686. THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF LOSS IN FUTURES TRADING.
If this guy expects 50% of his students to make money, that already sounds suspect because those are incredible stats.. A teaching vendor does not have to guarantee the success of his/her students, only demonstrate that they themselves know how to apply the method they're endorsing. Its precisely because exact systems tend not to work in all market conditions is why its so important that the instructor should have the ability to guide the student thru the nuances of the method.
We know there are profitable traders using all kinds of methods so we can't write off any method as BS.. we just don't know if you're being taught correctly from someone that is doing it themselves.. That's all you really have to go off really..
Last edited by Jedi; February 14th, 2013 at 01:47 AM.
The following user says Thank You to Jedi for this post:
Before thinking on Vendors and other Traders, you need to think on You!
I think it could be a good idea but I'm concerned with the impact it could have on you and the sustainability of futures.io (formerly BMT) over the years. As far as I understand you spend +10/12 hours a day between trading and futures.io (formerly BMT). With this new a feature you are asking feedback you will have more work not less, which it will mean more working hours. I also understand that the vast majority if not all the work done on futures.io (formerly BMT) is done by you, alone.
Having myself building a website and a community (nothing to do with trading or finance and much smaller than futures.io (formerly BMT)) I think this kind of involvement is not sustainable in the long run. In most cases is not healthy either. I know other trading site (kirkreport.com) that the author decided to take Fridays off and does not publish anything to make his life healthier and the project sustainable in the long run.
So I would like to suggest you before implementing this new vendor's feature you start thinking on delegate some of the futures.io (formerly BMT) work. Maybe get a few paid collaborators/employees you trust and that can help you on the things needed to be done here on futures.io (formerly BMT). In 10 years from now I would like to come to futures.io (formerly BMT) and still be able to read the forum as it today (or better evolving over time). If all the work is done by a single person for +14/16 hours a day I'm no so sure I could still read futures.io (formerly BMT) in 5 years time...
As someone before wrote, yes you could change the Elite membership to monthly or yearly subscription. I would happily contribute to futures.io (formerly BMT) if than would mean increasing the sustainability chances of futures.io (formerly BMT).
Could you please think in this?
Thank you very much.
The following user says Thank You to lugopt for this post:
There is nothing in the programme that I have read that says that this is going to become a mudslinging contest or a vigilante style "revenge trade".
It seems that it is
a. a voluntary programme (i.e. if you are a "binary option pirate" ... you will probably not apply .. and if you do ... caveat emptor)
b. it gives the futures.io (formerly BMT) community a focused voice for speaking to vendors - they will all value that if they are prepared to engage. If they are not prepared to engage they can resign from the programme and as usual on futures.io (formerly BMT) there will be no mudslinging
c. because of the fact that there are a lot of pirates out there - often good vendors will avoid approaching a rabble rousing trader community in case there are misunderstandings - there are good vendors out there and futures.io (formerly BMT) can become the place to get the low down on them
d. There is a difference between a bad vendor and an unhappy trader with a less than optimal vendor experience. This could be the place to sort that sort of thing out for both parties.
e. Vendors can withdraw and there is an arbitration process.
If I were a good vendor (I am not a vendor of any kind .. I am a customer .. looking for solutions to my problems ..) I would welcome the chance to have a level headed dialogue with the futures.io (formerly BMT) community.
The words of caution are many. Make it transparent, make it member review biased, don't bet the farm on it legally speaking. These are all already futures.io (formerly BMT) values I think.
The following user says Thank You to podski for this post:
Exaxtly, no vendor can guarantee the ultimate success of students. Howver I am interested in seeing that they are able to help people move forward. At least some should have found some level of success.
The real value in this system will be to eliminate the vast majority of advertised systems that sound great on paper but simply do not work. While audited statements would be ideal, all we really need to know is whether the system has a chance, assuming that I have put the necessary work into it. But if the teacher is unable to make money with his method/system, then how can he expect to make me profitable?
But I do not fully agree with the concept of free-trial / unconditional full refund. As a trader, I cannot expect someone else to take all the risk while I take none. I would be more interested in a pay-as-you go system or a way to get the majority of my money back should I find that the system/method is simply not for me. After all, I am expecting to learn something in the process and will likely use that to develop a trading style specific to me.
The following user says Thank You to ddnut for this post:
If dialogue is the arbitrator, then odds favor similar experiences with other trading forums as dialogue is their arbitrator as well. The dialogue will not be objective as there will be subjective supporters of the vendors that will back it with no evidence other than being associated in some form OR unsuccessful traders for reasons outside of the method, (which will always be the majority of the students regardless of how strong the method.) There will be ridiculous dialogues from both sides and readers will have to sort thru the BS like every other site..
The bottom line to trading methods is
1-exact methods "tend" to not to be effective in all market conditions. Exact methods don't require a lot of mentoring.
2-methods that are effective in all market conditions are "typically" discretionary. That means its only as effective as the trader using it.
For any vendor to claim stats like 50% student success would not make sense if its mechanical and would make even less sense if its discretionary.. To me, that's obvious BS.. If they verify it, my hat tips off to them..
If BM wants to be different with vendors, the bottom line is there needs to be OBJECTIVE evidence and students should know 90% of them is likely to fail anyways even from the best instructor.. that's just the nature of trading, for reasons outside of method, but at least they know what they were paying for..
I see what you are saying and indeed - objectivity - is the gold standard.
Just a couple of things:
1. To be honest - I doubt if anyone claiming any numbers like 80% success for an educator will get past the first phone call with most of us .. so I doubt whether those guys are going to even try to get any sort of exposure here.
2. I expect that good vendors - lets say the most tricky and also potentially very valuable category - coaches and educators - so ... lets say "good educators" don't need to shout so loudly on futures.io (formerly BMT). They would just
a. explain who they are, their background and what they can do
b. go in depth with some statistics which would look something like
- 90% of my students don't listen and give up after 5 sessions
- 10% stick with me for a year or more taking the Silver Track Package
- 10 hourly sessions (one per day) for two weeks
- 10 hourly sessions (two per week) for 5 weeks
- 38 hourly sessions (one per week) for 35 weeks
c. of the guys that stick it out > 50% of them are profitable
d. of the guys that trade with me for more than 2 years > 70% of them are profitable
e. They would outline their coaching method and indicate any technical emphasis or tools
OK - I'm just making this up on the fly ... but ... its about right for any dedicated full time trader doing it on their own
3. The objectivity in this tricky section would be not just focused on "was I profitable after the 2nd week" (because you will not be ... but you might have a trading plan and know where some of your mistakes are).... but rather .. did the guy deliver??
a. was he on time
b. does he speak english (or the required language)
c. did we agree a plan and did he stick to the plan
4. I think that a good and serious coach/doctor/programmer or any service provider ... will love this kind of objectivity and will work hard to keep a good rating. It's like an ebay rating. The coach would go to quite some trouble to make sure that the dialogue is clean. It is in their interest.
5. I think that when the time comes and there is a call for designing this objectivity into the process ... that you have something valuable to contribute to make sure that the judgement is clean ...
Finally a word on arbitration. My understanding is that this is going to be the "dialogue of last resort". If things get to arbitration they are almost over ... so it is the pre-divorce counselling ... or at least very serious. For an educator to have an unhappy customer ... it is the norm .. it is not abnormal or a disaster for them. They just have to deal with it in a nice way and make sure that there is adequate dialogue.
Was he on time?
Can he speak english?
Did he stick to his BS plan that has never made him any money in the past? LOL
Claiming student success is even harder to verify.. should we just take his word for it? back to subjective input with no evidence again.. If you or anyone else have the discretion to sort thru the truth from the BS, then you're probably the exception..
Ebay reviews is not a good comparison because ebay is service oriented. A trading coach is like a guide that walks you thru the Amazon jungle and help you survive. It takes more than customer service or theory knowledge but the ability to distinguish the nuances of the perils of the jungle. You want someone that has survived the experience and not to only have read about it or talked to someone that has..
The emphasis can't be on the student's profitability because odds are "better than average" that the student will not be successful regardless.. The evidence is what you are paying for.. All the information is free on the internet at BM or anywhere else.. any indicator and how to use it is fully explained everywhere on the net. The trader just needs to put it together in a cohesive way and that's typically where vendors offer value.. If a students wants to pay big bucks to learn what a support resistance is or how to use the MACD, then that's on the student.. nobody to blame there if the results didn't come from a vendor teaching what the basics are..
Last edited by Jedi; February 14th, 2013 at 12:37 PM.
This is a great thread. Adding these new "services" has the potential to really help clean up a generally very unprofessional Industry. Standardization and benchmarks in what is typically the "wild west" will bring a semblance of order and raise the bar in an Industry that really needs it.
There are many services rating mutual funds/investments and many consistently get the top ratings year after year.
Why not for trading (brokerages, educators, indicators, etc)?
The following user says Thank You to TrendTraderBH for this post: