The example of the room with 199 females is a poor analogy. What is being presented is a limited data-set...which is what every person who speaks of "edge" gets wrapped in. The better analogy is a room with 199 females and one male historically but there is an open door in the back where anyone can walk in and out over time.

Sure I don't think "50/50" was a great way of putting it. I think he just meant the "edge" from previous analysis doesn't last long and it may be over at any time. So be prepared to manage the trade if in, right away. Then one would have to "reassess" again the probability of a short vs. long.

Another thing he mentioned trading "2 units", then later on he mentioned a "unit" was 50 contracts. So he's trading 100 contracts? wow!

Does anyone know what his "charity" is and what it does? Or, who it helps? His credibility would diminish greatly, if it was just a non-profit helping himself, or some of his friends, as opposed to doing actual charitable work.

Also, his use of an alias is a somewhat disturbing. Who is he, really?

Fun to watch all of you go at it - confusing and conflicting the realm of logic versus the mathematical world of probability. Reminds me of my years in graduate school listening to the impassioned arguments of those whose ability to reason was supurb but whose background was limited. I have graduate degrees in Philosophy of Science. Karl Popper. anong many (the best is the American W.V.O. Quine) tried to combine the two - known as a probabilistic analysis. He like so many failed in his grand claims, but contributed much useful thinking to the problem of the intersection of logic, math, and verification - empiricism.

"Popper's solution [COLOR=#0066cc][14][/COLOR] was an original contribution in the [SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc]philosophy of mathematics[/COLOR][/SIZE]. His idea was that a number statement such as "2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples" can be taken in two senses. In one sense it is irrefutable and logically true, in the second sense it is factually true and falsifiable. Concisely, the pure mathematics "2 + 2 = 4" is always true, but, when the formula is applied to real world apples, it is open to falsification. [COLOR=#0066cc][15][/COLOR]"

I was listening to the Webinar when Futuretrader71 made his now famous statement. He is no educator - he failed to distinguish that in logic there is only true or false, or win or lose; versus the vastscience of verification through mathematical means - often in common parlance - probability. Oil and water - they never mix well. Trying to explain one in tems of the other is the philosphy of science in Western Civilization - now some 2500 plus years in the making. This thread is now a part of that endeavor. Best. Larry

I agree that I covered too much in this webinar. Mike and I had talked about a series and my intention was to establish background and path, so that the audience can have a sense of who they are listening to. There are many talking heads out there but few have real trading experience, so I didn't want to be just another talking head.

The 4 webinars are a more in-depth look at the market from a real auction perspective. VP is not a system. It is a way of looking at the auction. It can be combined with anything else to provide a real foundation and confidence in what we see as not just random numbers.

I would like to know if anyone here has tried the 4 webinars on his website and did you find them to be of value to your trading?
He had too much information to cover in the video, so maybe someone who is following FT71 could elaborate.

Thanks

The issue with making blanket statements about "opening range" or other setups is that they don't take into account the fact that the market is driven by context. This point eludes most people in that they are looking for some magic setup (I get asked for setups all of the time) that they can apply under blanket circumstances. This is not how most professionals trade.

The most elusive thing you will find about learning to trade is defining and reading context. The same issue exists when learning a language. Without context, a word or a phrase makes no sense. Most books, indicators, seminars and other tools sold out there are attempting or trying to make you believe that you will have context or don't need context.

So I suggest you read the market like a book. Understand where it is coming from and what it is trying to do from the "test, move, retest" auction perspective.

Big topic and great question, but hard to get into here without narrating a book.

Hi Anon,

My charity is an IRS registered 501(c)3 organization that underwent a lot of scrutiny by both the State of Illinois and the Federal government. You can't get tax exempt status for "helping myself, or some of my friends". We work with soup kitchens, provide food and clothing to refugees and spend countless hours working with religious institutions of all faiths and backgrounds.

I used my alias when I first joined a public board in 2004 that is just like Big Mike's. I picked a random name that stuck and so I kept it as an online brand. Additionally, by talking about where my office was in the CBOT and so forth, I started getting random visitors coming up during office hours wanting help or wanting to watch.

I changed offices and kept my alias as a way to keep the focus on what I was openly sharing FOR FREE online rather than who I am. If all of a sudden I changed it to my real name, then I would have to start over with a new brand. In the end, who I am is irrelevant. The fact is that those who have followed and believe in my motto to learn how to fish by keeping things simple have benefited from that.

If you want a link to my charity's work or the IRS approval notice, ping me. To the discussion at hand, I fail to see how this is relevant...but then again...I don't know who you are either. Nonetheless, if you ask me a question or for any help with anything, you would get an answer and an effort from me and that is what I'm known for the most.

Cheers!

Thank you for your offer. This is not relevant except to the issue of credibility. I had moved on from this discussion after I did my "due diligence". But, since you brought it back up I decided to look a little a deeper.

All non profits are scrutinized, the same, by IRS and State during the filing process, it's what happens after the filing that's important. After all, every questionable non-profit filed their papers in the beginning.

I looked up your "charity's" Form 990-EZ which you filed with the IRS for the last year available. Unfortunately, it shows, only $2391, less than 4% of the funds raised was paid out to other individuals and charities you support. This seems especially low given the fact there aren't any salaries and very little administrative expenses. It's probably more important to spend 18x times more money raising the funds than distributing them. I'm sure the next year you file for will show a different situation. To further the cause credibility you could provide those figures now, since it appears you file on a calendar basis. I would, also, suggest you hire an accountant to help you in filing this form, as it appears there are might be an error or two(this is my personal observation and opinion).

I understand why you might be reluctant to disclose your entire background and you, probably, have more to risk in any further pursuit of these matters. I do remember you(The Rock) from JP's Room. I, truly, hope your current level of altruism is sincere.

(I'd be able to post a copy of the Form 990-EZ you filed with the IRS, it is open to public inspection; if anyone questions the credibility of my findings and is interested in verifying them.)