There is no correlation between a positive broker statement and whether you can successfully trade their system. They could train and teach you everything they know but you will never be able to execute it like they do.
Stop. Do the work, create a system that you believe in and then trade it.
The following 2 users say Thank You to tturner86 for this post:
You say this with authority as if it is a fact TTURNER. Perhaps you can point us to the facts which makes you draw such a conclusion. Otherwise I will assume this is just your opinion. If that is the case then what are you basing your opinion on ? Thanks in advance.
Of course there is, if vendor can not trade profitably himself, what can he teach his students, the same faulty ideas he can not implement himself (not talking about Brooks, just generally about vendors)?
I guess my original point was that traders (including myself in the past) have fallen under the guise they were following a trader (Al Brooks in this case) and his methods that were actually traded on a live market.
There was no reason to believe otherwise.
So verifiable broker statements would cement the ideology behind the method(s) and perhaps make traders feel that if correctly applied they could be successful at them too. It doesn't mean they will be successful, but it gives something to shoot for.
It appears Al is unwilling to prove he trades what he teaches on a live market. That is disappointing, especially as he is promoted on FIO.
As I said I don't know all of the facts. Perhaps more will become available if Al is interested in doing so.
I bought Al's course a number of months ago and also took advantage of the free month of his trading room via the FIO deal. I did not find the room helpful. I think I heard somewhere else he said the same thing, that disclosing his broker statement was against regulations. It struck me as odd. Now that I see it again I'm disappointed.
I was not hopeful when a thread in his forum was titled anyone here make money using this method and there were no replies. I moved on from his method because it was overly complicated. It did not resonate with me.
It's disheartening that he's in the scammer camp in this industry because I thought he was one of the genuine ones.
Al Brooks course on price action has benefited me more than any other system. You can just watch the markets to verify that his descriptions of price action are correct. He also is coming out with a major upgrade to his course with modern graphical techniques and he is giving it to people who have already bought the old course for no extra charge. I don't think he should play this "prove it" game, as it only appeals to the base instincts of those who shouldn't be trading in the first place. If you want to know if a system works, trade it and find out. Al Brooks provides the best value out there. His old course was under $300 and provides a ton of information, unlike courses going for $5000 which say nothing beyond standard material.
The following 3 users say Thank You to jodistrict for this post:
Yes, yes, yes. I have read all of his books and I get what you are saying. My point was if it turns out to be true that he doesn't actually trade live and can't prove that he ever has (which is polar opposite to what I have believed all of this time and what he has lead me to believe) then I find that deeply troubling. Some might not but I do and it seems others do too.
It doesn't mean he doesn't have valid things to say. Al has managed to collate existing methods and put them into digestible pieces (in his rewritten books anyway). I don't believe he has any new method or techniques that didn't exist before, he has just presented them all in a readable manner.
If it makes no odds to you then great, but surely the moral compass gets a bit skewed when we at FIO are promoting somebody that at the moment doesn't appear to trade what he teaches, after many indications to the contrary. That would certainly put the red flags up for me if I was new to trading.
More fact checking needs to be done as I am sure there are blank areas that need to be filled in.
- Trade what you see. Invest in what you believe -
The following user says Thank You to JonnyBoy for this post:
That's more or less true for me, as well. (I also found Bob Volman and Lance Beggs pretty helpful).
I can't pretend that I'd be making a living at all, without having studied Al Brooks' stuff, though.
(I've never seen his trading room. I have no interest in trading rooms.)
I found his books not particularly well written, and very badly edited, but their content is outstanding for those willing to make the effort to get through them (and for me, that really was quite an effort).
His video course is completely different from his books in terms of approachability and comprehensibility.
My impression is that a lot of the criticism directed toward Dr. Brooks comes from people who have struggled to understand the concepts of price action, not been successful with it, and/or found his books unapproachable (understandably), and haven't actually seen his video course.
If I were Dr. Brooks, I think I'd be taking the view that those "challenging" him to produce trading/earnings verification aren't potential customers anyway and should be completely ignored. It's well known and adequately publicly acknowledged that he gave up a very successful career as an opthalmology professor and eye surgeon because he earned more from trading, over a very long period of time, before he was ever any kind of "vendor" at all. It's also evident that his income as a vendor is pretty inconsequential, anyway.
He comes across to me fairly unmistakably as a highly successful trader who likes doing some teaching as a sideline. I find that very understandable, given his background.
I see no reason for him to demean himself by responding to these silly "challenges". I wouldn't dream of it, myself, in his position.
The following user says Thank You to Tymbeline for this post: