In his book, while he was trading and recording the diary, he made 9.6%, not his compounded rate that you throw out...refer page 245.
Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).
2nd of all, If I was a noob, I would gladly pay tuition to a known quantity like him to accelerate my learning curve. Instead of stumbling through the dark trying out every possible thing on the planet and blowing out 4 accounts in the process (and far more money than I would have paid him in the process). I have always maintained a credible teacher goes a long way in any craft. Why is trading different?
3rd of all, A guy that makes this amount of money with such a low win rate understands the power of position sizing and compounding - something 99% of hotshots don't. This needs to be applauded, not scoffed at.
4th of all, ...quotes Precther? I must have missed that, because I didn't see that on that page. Anyway, if you want to hold that against him, that's ok. It doesn't make him him a villain.
Disingenuous? I thought he was being modest about not bragging his record, and being one of the few to have verified his trading. That gives him credibility, no?
Perhaps he is the real deal? Are you suggesting his 18year record is fake? No, don't answer that! We already know the answer to that.
To each his own mate.
The following 2 users say Thank You to Deucalion for this post:
I fear I have offended you, which was the farthest thing from my mind. I’ll reiterate that I appreciate your posts & opinions, and did not intend to be a harsh audience. If anything, I was following your advice that I’ve seen in previous posts: question everything, including my (meaning your) comments.
The rate I “throw out” is what is posted on his website. I realize his book/diary results are different. I re-reading my comment, I realize it wasn’t clear.
Well, that was mostly in jest since you refer to Prechter as a blow hard, who has destroyed EW with dogmatic stubbornness (I agree with you on that one also). I found it interesting that Brandt posts a Prechter quote prominently beside his (Brandt’s) photograph which says: “..when I wasn’t at the top, the #1 guy was usually Peter Brandt” Just follow the link I already provided & you’ll see it.
What I think is disingenuous is:
1. Brandt’s book saying “I have absolutely no desire in this book to show how I can turn a small fortune into a large one." , then
2. Brandt’s website advertising “…this stunning fact…” about his record: “The auditors calculated that, based on Peter's actual performance, each $1,000 of initial capital returned $334,817 during those 18 years.”
No, I’m not suggesting it. I have no idea, and I’ve done no research. But in response to your remark, I’d simply say neither do I think we already know the answer to that. Didn’t we find out through WorldCom, Enron, and others that audited results can be fabricated? Inaccurate? Deceptive? Didn’t Madoff teach us a lot about misrepresentations?
Indeed. If you find value in his book, if his methods improve your trading skills, I think that's great. If you pay his tuition and attend his Boot Camp, maybe you will reach the next level in your trading success, and I would wish you well. And I make these remarks with sincerity, lest you think I'm the one being disingenuous.
The following user says Thank You to Dagonet for this post:
Posts like the previous one are a valuable window into human behavior.
I couldn't tell you how many private messages I have received from newbies telling me that they read all the vendor critiques on some thread by me and paid three grand for the 'suite' anyway. Dean has been sufficiently discredited but others feel the need to look into it and reiterate a forgone conclusion anyway.
I am beginning to think that the entire Vendor reviews section is a major source of revenue for the vendors, regardless of the reviews. All you have to do is create the thread and keep it on pg. 1 through a fake login and a slightly relevant comment.
Rather sad to see...
Last edited by FalseProphets; October 5th, 2013 at 10:55 PM.
The following 3 users say Thank You to FalseProphets for this post:
Ok, looks like Dr. Dean Handley came up with a new updated list of top trading rooms in January (published March?) of this year
in the article "Trading Futures Successfully: Humans vs. Robots", Issue #1/2014
But just secondhand references to the original in other articles when doing a web search.
Other trading rooms/sites referencing the March Futures Truth article: ( so looks like three sites are referred to on the list here. )
I recognize what I am going to say will have me split and filleted in short order by those with far more futures.io (formerly BMT) cred than my meager standing. However, I feel like this needs to be said, and specifically in this thread.
There comes a point, when carrying around a healthy dose of skepticism, that people in search of objectivity can never achieve it. Because all vendors are evil. Because anyone suggesting anything outside a certain myopic view is charlatan out to steal our hard earned money. From my experience, the above is mostly true when it comes to vendors and trading educators.
The problem I see when painting broadly with the "snake-oil salesman" brush is that you might actually miss that %1 or less chance of something legit. I've read all Dean's recent articles and consulted with him twice. He's a decent guy and he's not lying about what he thinks is credible futures trading rooms. I don't know if he has a deal with all of the rooms he puts forward as profitable.
Having actually joined on a trial basis some of the rooms Dean writes about, I have not found anything he wrote to be a lie. Reven Wood hammers home the need to sim trade. He hammers home the need to have a trade journal. The calls in his room happen in advance and his records are factual for the time I have watched him. He has plenty of losing trades. I am not suggesting people need his service to succeed, but he's no scoundrel as far as I can tell.
Dean told me how it was in Reven's room. It was that way. He told me how he analyzed Reven's approach and decided he was getting in to early, and he should wait for pull backs to improve results. It was true as far as I can see. Dean told me you could pretty much skip any of Reven's longs AM/PM. Or, take only the AMs on a X pullback.
Dean may lack some online advertising etiquette. Perhaps he doesn't realize how some of that spammy type e-mail is interpreted. He's an author so I guess he wants to promote the articles he's written....*shrug*. He's not a personal friend of mine, neither is Reven Wood.
I'm just not sure the dog pile of negativity does anyone any good. I actually think it's not an accurate assessment of what Dean is doing, but that is solely my opinion. He may very well have earned this enmity. I don't know. He's been more than fair to me.
The following 4 users say Thank You to DrRumpy for this post:
Talked to Dr. Dean a couple of times. Tried out three of the rooms that he highly recommended. I can't believe he actually spent the time in those rooms that he claimed. All three were junk. One was an out and out rip off. I won't run Dr. Dean down, but I'd say do what he suggests. Don't bother with a room that does not have a lengthy free trial. Don't bother with a room that does not show/call trades in advance with stop placement also specifically called out. Don't believe ANY "results" that the site claims, only believe what you see in the room. One site that Dr. Dean recommended listed great results over the past several years. When I attended the room the actual results in the room were very poor, but every day the moderator "claimed" that he was having great success off-line, trading the system. Let's get real. If he can't trade the system in front of you where you can see it working, he can't trade it off line. You have to accept the fact that 95% of trading rooms/trading systems are not consistently profitable. They exist to take your money. Buyer beware.
Last edited by alans; July 26th, 2014 at 09:43 PM.
The following 3 users say Thank You to alans for this post: