Exactly, I have been around for 29 years in the markets, and I agree, it is so hard trying to sift the useless from the worthwhile as there are so many vendors selling so much nowadays.
It is also very hard because (typically) 95-97% of amateur Traders end up losing anyway. This is not always the result of a bad system, as many amateurs just continue to make so many fundamental mistakes, like over trading, not letting winners run etc etc. The hard fact of Trading life is that it is hard and very few make it.
Personally, I believe that to stand a good chance to have to understand a few basics on the markets, first that markets move in cycles, in other words they go though good/bad or clear/unclear times. This makes trading any type of mechanical system hard (most mechanical systems blow up after a while and are only short lived). This is what Emmett is looking for as this is the only thing that he seems to focus on. But, because this is not what we do at MTPredictor, it will be hard for Emmett to judge us using his limited criteria. We do not believe in mechanical or system trading our setups. Our setups are to be used in conjunction with the end user experience. This is what we teach in our Training (not Trading) Room. I have have been amazed over the years at how different, different users approach and utilize our setups. Everybody is unique and an individual, so it is natural that they will have different Risk tolerance and different aggression and a different (an individual) approach to the markets. Again, that is why trying to attach a track Record to what we do is unrepresentative, because each user will be different anyway.
You are right, money management is not mentioned enough by most vendors, especially when keeping losses under control is so important. This should apply to any system or approach, not just ours. If people can master this, then they stand a chance.
To answer your question on whether Vendors should trade their own Systems, here is my history and take on that.
I started trading (with my own money) in 1987 and had three hard years, like most amateurs I struggled and could not make any system I purchased work. I then found success and put together 3 very good years. I then moved to become a professional fund manager with a City Trading Firm, but this only lasted 9 months as the company I was working for ceased trading. I then went back to trading my own money. This continued until I launched MTPredictor in 2001. I did this because although I was making a good %, when you only have a small amount of trading capitol, all my profits were just paying for living expenses.
Since 2001 I have been focusing on software development and Customer support. But I have been missing trading, so I have recently started trading (with my own money) again. So yes, I do trade my own money using my own software.
But none of this was in Emmett 's review because (as I said in my last post) he never bothered to download our software or read our web site fully or contact me with any questions.
However, what I have found is that it is very very hard to focus on full time trading while providing full time customer support and all the other things that being a software developer involve. I will give you an example. I was recently short a lovely TS3(HG) short on the YM, but I had to take a Customer support call, so I moved my stop to break-even (too early), I then got stopped out for break-even only to watch the trade reach its target where I should have taken a +7R Profit.
So I think this is why so many vendors don't trade, it is not because they can't or that they don't believe in their own system or approach, it is because their priorities have to be to their Customers and their Company, and not their own Trading.
So to be so hard on vendors (like Emmett seems to be) I think is unfair. As I said in my last post, I think each person should take their time and evaluate any new system they are interested in. Ask questions, do their research and see whether it fits in with their own style of trading. But just to blanket every vendor who does not not trade themselves with a bad review is too harsh and not fair as this belittles what many vendors are doing for their own Customers. As you say - As long as vendors are honest about what they are doing and don't make false claims, then that should be OK for prospects to be able to evaluate what they offer.
The following user says Thank You to Griff1 for this post:
I just had a look over at TS. Ouch. So as a guy sitting on the fence...
I guess Emmett's point when reviewing any trading software is to determine that the average end user can be profitable by using it. If a trader isn't profitable at that said moment in time, could the software be used in a manner that could perhaps turn the fortunes of a struggling trader around, or at the very least stop the bleeding!
Is there enough evidence to suggest that the end user is better or worse off for using the said vendor's software vs. the hundreds of other pieces of trading software available to them.
If there is a discernible edge to using a piece of software, can it be proven? Unfortunately, the only way Emmett can determine that is by requesting evidence that the vendor's software does in fact make a trader profitable or not.
I am not agreeing nor defending Emmett. He can be bloody harsh, but I believe there is some good in what he is trying to do. He seems to have flushed out some of the crooks that is for sure. But, by putting some heat under the more trusted vendors (like yourselves) I believe it can only lead to a better product produced by you guys. I sincerely believe that.
I do not have your software so my comments are strictly related to how I read the TS posts.
- Trade what you see. Invest in what you believe -
if you drill down all he is saying is you will not provide trading records that you trade the system and wave studies are not easy. other that that your good. that is good ..look what he says about the rest of the field. market delta, motive wave, CQG full package, x Trader Pro , Bloomberg would all receive the same same review...they do not provide any of the stuff he would use to grade there software too. but i agree with Johnnyboy over all he has exposed some bad people. some should be jailed...
Yes. A Bloomberg terminal (as an example) could not provide any of the information to define a discernible edge, because that software wasnít designed or advertised in a way that it could. The same applies to TradeStation, NinjaTrader, XTrader or any trading platform for that matter. Not one of them sells themselves on the fact it can improve your trading.
Where the issues arise (for me and many others) is when software is advertised in such a way that it can provide an edge, reduce your risk but has no reasonable way of proving it. In fact, it is often the case where there is not a single shred of evidence that the software is even mildly profitable or can in some way provide the tiniest of edges.
The only way us traders can prove success is the bottom line. If it isnít positive on a consistent basis, then we are eating beans on toast next month for dinner.
Vendors have a habit of whistling past the windmill (point of no return) and they fall into a self-fulfilling prophecy of believing their software is as good as they say it is. They have ventured too far down the line and invested too much money to pull out now.
Can they prove it as good as they portray? No. They donít need to because they can just blame the end user experience, different trading approaches, utilisation of the software, risk tolerance etc. And the cycle repeats over and over.
We have all seen this narrative before including the insanity of Michael @ BTTFT whom eventually admitted he doesnít trade his own software live, after some very bizarre posts on a thread (canít remember the name of it now) last year.
I think it was Emmett that pointed out MTPredictor advertised with the slogan |Control Your Trading Risk and Win| - well if you Google search them they still do. To this day though, I donít believe they provided TS with any information substantiating this claim.
Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).
This will continue to be a merry-go-round of vendor vs. end user experience, different trading approaches, utilisation of the software, risk tolerance and so on.
In other words, until a vendor can prove ďsomethingĒ about their product being even mildly edge providing or profitable, the narrative will be spun around and around and around. New traders will get on the ride with hopes and dreams, whilst now Ďseasonedí traders get off the ride wondering how they could have been drawn into it in the first place.
The only reason I know is because I have been that trader until I woke up and realised this; the only fool for believing this stuff works was me.
- Trade what you see. Invest in what you believe -
The following user says Thank You to JonnyBoy for this post:
i no you have seen my post on other vendors and no one hits them harder than me. few trader know any thing much about wave studies. mt predictor has advance tools on waves like motive wave and can scan for them too. it also as limited auto fib. tools . limited VSA volume tools, advanced traded management tools. what i was trying and may be did not do a good job on was to point out ....this software is much more that just a auto trading signals that is the grail. it has the stuff under the hood to do advance studies like the software i referenced in my post. now i do not use the software, i do all of my studies the hard way..that is how i learned but i have look at it and others and do not give a damn about the vendor. your point about the way it is marketed is correct. if you pull that out of the question the software could stand on its own merits. also the person doing the reviewing is not always 100 % correct on every matter. like giving Jasons oil trading room 5 stars for example , he gave market delta edge the same review as mtpridector. your point was well made as always i would give this one a little more air than the others.
Last edited by forgiven; February 27th, 2017 at 12:18 PM.
The following user says Thank You to forgiven for this post: