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)
Al Brooks Trading Course (www.brookstradingcourse.com)
The election is not a good example representing an argument to my opinion above.
I am talking about acquiring skills to perform a task (become a profitable trader) as the person we looking up to learn from and HOW to do the same as he does.
Can you help answer these questions from other members on NexusFi?
What BM was saying was: "the requirement to be a good teacher does not require you are good at what you teach."
In plain English, one can be a good teacher (of a profitable method) but a lousy trader of it. I called this earlier the "do as I say not as I do" problem.
This was my #3 point in post #232:
"It is basically the case of being a better teacher than a trader."
The ( most likely psychological) reasons could be multiple: not patient enough, taking revenge trades, inconsistency, fear of putting a position on, etc.
Now we usually expect a person to be good at what he is teaching, but that is not always the case. An example would be, hell, if you guys are not getting this, an example won't help.
---------------------------------------------
The guy who got 5 stars from Emmett just opened up a futures trading room , where:
"will analyze charts for the S&P 500 E-Mini, Gold and Oil futures and will place trades and then manage them for maximum profit and minimum risk."
I thought of a couple more good analogies, then like Pedro on second thought concluded another analogy or example isn't going to sway anyone's opinion. As Mike pointed out its about a 50/50 split either way at this point, so for the most part we have each made up our minds and will need new information to change someone's opinion.
I pretty much agree, but I'm not sure about the 50/50 split....
I think it's more like this: a very small number of people are very excited and strongly committed to the belief that Al Brooks has been definitely proven to be not a real trader who is lying and ripping people off, and who should be banished everywhere, including here.
Another group, also sort of small, possibly a little larger on this thread, either aren't convinced of the proof, or think the fire and heat is not especially called for. Few of this group are particularly passionate about the subject of Al Brooks and don't see that much to be outraged about, other than the low level this "debate" has sunk to. This has outraged the first group even more.
The vast majority on this forum probably don't have any idea that this fierce little controversy is going on, and don't and won't care one way or the other about it.
The essential irrelevance of this whole thing to most traders' concerns is the most important fact about it.
To all those that claim Brooks' materials are a waste, please provide the following:
1) Number of months that you spent in his trading room. Please attach copies of the email payment receipts you received from PayPal for each month you subscribed. (You can block out your info)
2) Proof that you bought his course. (again, block out your info)
3) Receipts showing you purchased Brooks' 3 books on trading.
This tread is all about wanting "PROOF", isn't it? You can't prove how much time you actually spent studying his materials, but you can certainly provide PROOF that you actually bought his course and you paid for his trading room.
If you can't provide proof to back up your opinion, that speaks volumes. Doesn't it?
Only because I have the song "Bushes of Love" stuck in my head all weekend and I need something even more mildly irritating to focus on now.
Emmett (the ex-con) is a stickler about many things but not accurate reporting or thinking or being a decent person. Tip, never let a conman remote to your computer (injection possibility) or give him any personal details like tax records or your brokerage account.
I had a quick scan of the source of the corruption (the last few posts made on the side, the site is unreadable with jumbled chronological sorting) and even over there seemingly sane people are now saying that "Pete" and some others (who might be the same poster) are shills for Al! (and driving them nutty).
Pete and "others" bring him up allegedly every day in every thread possible to keep his name everywhere it is said. The old block-out-the-sun trick. For younger ones, what Trump did. Madness.
Either Pete is EmmettorEmmett is showing no compassion to a mentally ill man on his site . Emmett is not the saint some want to portray him, he would help the "Pete" if he was. It seems others tried and failed.
But look at EM's own Brooks comment attached (highlighted paragraph).
Lets accept $4 per R/T including platform is realistic for students (way cheaper for a lease or seat holder etc.).
So "statistically this is a near impossibility" (26 ES trades a day), what a load of complete crap! Seriously? that is down in writing?
So Emmett cares nothing about accuracy but fake news and fake everything keeps things buzzing for him (and his website SEO) just like the larger media. He is a profitably sloppy outraged mess and others are building on that mess with him as free labor. Infowars would be freaking proud.
He does say as most who have seen Brooks' work have, his basic lessons are fine.
Damn me too and.. Bushes of love is still playing in my head.
