Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Automating 'Market Making Scalping Manual" by Gary Norden or "NoBSDayTrading"
Good thing about selling opinion based trading techniques is that there are no way to back-test them and everyone understands the information differently.
I would ignore his advice. Make your own group where people who have bought his material can join for discussion.
I don't think it has to be so complicated guys. If you see someone with a differing view on the course then message them or set up a skype session to understand why you see things differently. Different traders have differing experience and views on the market. I'm quite surprised to see such differing opinions on the course because everything I've seen from Gary was rock solid, and I've based a lot of my trading philosophy on it. So I can only assume that difference is coming down to those personal perspectives, and the only way to decipher this for those on the outside is if you guys talk to each other to see why your views differ.
I suppose the only way to truly satisfy my curiosity would be to buy it myself, but I've always advocated that people should be very careful about spending very much on trading education. I'm not going to drop a grand on a course just because I like the author, especially when some are saying that it probably wouldn't be new material to me. I know this probably seems like way too much effort to put into researching a course, but it's kind of killing me. So if anyone gets together or can provide more information to help us determine how much value the course would have to us I'd appreciate it.
I have read this thread and it is uncomfortable. Certainly has me wondering whether or not we have been given enough to make this market making method viable; if indeed in 2020 it is viable.
I do think Gary could give some real market examples of what he is looking for regards the tools used which make for the more likely winning trades.
Gary talks about a client who only takes the strongest potential trades in the same way as only playing the strongest few hands in poker. And that client is profitable.
Showing real examples in the manual, giving more help isn't about a student trader being lazy. It is about providing a reference point, a benchmark for what is the better practice. Copying good practice is a very accepted method of learning: 'watch one, do one, teach one'.
I am not looking for a short cut; I am certainly not lazy. I know there are many hours of purposeful practice ahead. Yet I am not sure I have been given quite enough to succeed.
It's a shame that we cannot discuss about so called "vendors" here openly. I have been a member since 2012 and I have to say, things have changed. I understand that futures.io has sponsors that pay a fee, but we traders and members should be able to speak freely and openly about any vendor, regardless if they sponsor this forum or not.
I believe anyone selling any product should have to prove that they can implement it themselves before asking people to dish out 1k.
I am suspicious of anyone who has to flash their floor badge or just display it in the background. My father has also been a trader since the 70's, but I've seen him lose as well as win multiple 6 figures. I surely wouldn't follow his advice blindly. He also has a jacket from chicago. I should sell a course too. Fade my father course only 2k, of course with NDA.
I think norden doesn't trade his own acct for a living and I bet Davies from Jigsaw lives quite nicely in Thailand, just form royalties made by his software.
100% agree. The special vendor arrangements and sponsorships further muddy the already difficult to navigate waters.
The Elite Discounts section of this website is a perfect example.
The fact is just being listed in that section is signaling that these are the recommended vendors. The page reads "Even though we believe these are great products and services, you should always do your own research before doing business with a company."
The 1st and 2nd vendors on the list are Ninjatrader and DTN IQFeed. They are good products, but few consistently profitable traders from this forum use them. Big Mike himself does not use them. No offense, but I'd wager that Big Mike does not currently use any of these vendors https://nexusfi.com/elite_membership/
So while it is nice to receive the discounts if you were going to buy the vendor anyway, thinking the elite offers are recommended by this forum or are the correct choice out of their competitors is false.
I think there are some people that do not feel "safe" discussing Norden's book after they purchased it. I have not seen direct evidence that futures.io would enforce the NDA from Norden (now partnerd up withJigsaw). And I hope it stays that way.
Well, I would argue that if the book contains certain intellectualy property which is copyrighted, then discussing that would potentially be a breach of said copyright. But IMO one can certainly discuss the merits of purchasing it or not without having to go into too much specifics, surely?
Having said that, I was more concerned about the general statement
given I never (personally) have come across anyone being chastised for providing a critically negative review about any vendor.
Obviously negative reviews need to be backed up, i.e. one can't just say "vendor X is dishonest" or "product Y from vendor ABC is crap" without actually explaining why that is factually.
