I just began to wonder, what people think about these guys(Jason Bond, Warriortrader,claytrader, etc)
Saw a video few years ago, where clay went short on some penny stock ; price rose up till he was down $4 000 in 10 mins or so, then went back and he made $1 000. That was the first and the last time of me watching any of his videos, since, obviously, he haven't seen that video with young Tudor, where he says : ,,Im risking 8 cents to make $8. ********************************************************************** Your best teacher will be your own data, - your own mistakes. You can collect that with demos/sims.
Nobert is correct, the only way to consistent trading results is to be your own guru. Most will not do what it takes to know WTF to do and have/develop the discipline to do it. Looking for someone to feed you setups is a blind alley. You can certainly learn from others but at the beginning, few know enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.
These "gurus" are selling 5k courses....Sry is it scam? Or just to pump stocks to SUBSCRIBED members lol and then drop with profit?
I have come to believe that anyone selling trading services is doing so because they need the money. Which means they aren't making enough money from their own trading activities to maintain their lifestyle. That might be an unfair assumption, but I think in the overwhelming majority of gurus it is true, so that is my default assumption, unless the guru provides an audited track record to his/her subscribers.
They aren't gurus. They are fakes and now with the markets running at historical highs everyone is signing up to their programs and classes. Thats where they make money..not on trading. This will all end when the bubble goes pop. The euphoria in this market is a million fold what it was in 1999. The amount of new traders and people buying stocks I have seen in the last year is nothing like I have ever seen before. The euphoria is insane.
There's actually some research out there that supports that type of trading (and I mean post doc stuff...). It has to do with the probabilities of hitting 1000 vs -4000. Some of it actually supports dd of 5x's vs expected outcome, and if you think about how many ppl fail at "you must make 2:1" there is some sense to it. It's out there in the interwebs if anyone wants to dig around. I've learned my lesson with trying to post actual research on this board.