I just meant if his “basic” “generic” tools don’t work then what does? And why are we here if nothing does.
I’m tempted to post an Excel reconciliation showing the effect to my account when using these methods versus not. THe results are very positive in favor of the methods. Folks cant just test OTE’s, that would be silly. The point is confluences; multiple reasons to trade in the direction of Market Structure. How many times were we told that these methods don’t work by themselves? Dozens maybe? Yes, they take lots of work to be able to use. But those folks doubting the methods, because I admit something really really strange was going on, I don’t know what, are just not right. This is not my heart speaking here. Thats why he called it being a sniper and aimed for 6-10 trades a month, and I personally dislike guns and the metaphors, but to each his own.
I just focus on ICT because I believed him. I did not buy into the vast majority of threads covering all these forums.
Your questions are ones I have asked myself from the beginning and to just talk seriously for a minute I do think are pretty fundamental in this whole trading affair.
Does any form of technical analysis offer an edge in the market? Are there any consistently profitable technical traders in existence? The stats from retail brokers are not looking good and the vast majority if not all traders loose their investments after X amount of time.
Lets be completely honest you don’t see anyone making money with any of the tools on a consistent basis. Check every myfxbook on the forum, it’s not looking good.
It’s why I was REALLY looking forward to ICT’s live account. I thought that he could be the first person I have ever seen trade an account profitably. Didn’t happen though.
Woolo,
Hypothetically, if I could show you a 16 month period with a $5K account that using his methods added at least 2K grown consistently over that time. If I could prove this to you, would you retract part of your statement.
Of course can be tested as long as there is a quantitative definition for [I]market structure[/I].
[I]Market structure[/I] is just a rebranded name for Trend Analysis in the Dow Theory (something that has been around for 100+ years)
Did you know that even the ICT Market Structure indicator is just a “TRO” version from another one??
I actually called him out on the gun thing on the other account I had… Before I realized I was breaking the Sock Puppeting Rule. I got sick of this account name so I made another and soon grew bored of that… etc. Remember InnerCircle[B]Tader[/B]? Heh… As you well know, I’m a gun nut so I’ve seen quite a few Youtube videos that are gun related. He took screenshots of a youtube video and then represented the clips as his own firearms. Look here http://forums.babypips.com/introduce-yourself/44182-babypips-official-mugshots-post-pic-yourself-you-know-you-wanna-12.html
He then proceeded to post this video on his livestream. My Second Passionon Babypips.com Inner Circle Trader - live streaming video powered by Livestream
I noticed how familiar it was to this one that I remembered seeing a few months prior.
and called him out on it.
I called him out to see if he would come clean. He finally admitted they weren’t his and did some damage control, so either I deleted the post on my other account “TheMadCrumpet” or Babypips did for the CoC violation. I forgot who did.
I always wondered about some of the intros to his earlier videos…especially the one taken from one of those online multiplayer games …“Call of Duty” YouTube Anyways, that was about the time his videos got removed for some “CFTC” issue…or was it? I thought maybe he illegally borrowed that game intro and got caught by the gaming company.
Of course I would, I’m after proof not an ego boost.
That wouldn’t surprise me lol. I probably should have told the guy who posted the gun video that ICT took it and represented it as his own for a little while.
I stand corrected. ICT is legit. Clearly legit.
Always wondered why he made a point in one of the trading videos about how he would never show his guns online. Always thought it was a very bizarre note to open on.
So who is this guy IRL then? Why would he spend all this time making videos and interacting in he forums? He must have some trading background right? Since Lori featured him on is site he should have had something decent to contribute.
Well after he posted the pics and videos people were making comments in admiration of “His” gun collection. He clearly went along with it until I posted the original video. Then he went on about how he would never post pictures of his guns online, which I found rather absurd. Plenty of people take pictures of their firearms and post them online… There are entire websites dedicated to it lol.
I started thinking “Hmm, what if he really doesn’t have an amazing gun collection… what if he really doesn’t have an Audi R8… What if he doesn’t have a mansion…”
And then I shrugged it off for a while because I was clinging to a false hope that he really was who he was and for whatever quirky reasons, didn’t want to prove himself.
I suppose this is why people say “Pictures or it never happend” heh.
ETA: I also recall somebody posting this picture and joking about how it was ICT’s.
ICT then went on to say something along the lines of, “Oh, mine is better than that”.
I highly doubt that now…
And honestly, if he can maintain and live a lie for that long, it’s probably for the better that he doesn’t.
lol, i had no idea of his shananigans. Heck, after I heard he lost a trade, and then said he did it for a reason, to teach copiers a lesson, i was kinda floored by that… What if 1 of his sheeple put the farm on his word?
*shakes head
Crazy people do crazy things. Crazy can’t always be defined.
Lori clearly didn’t do his homework.
So let’s discuss a methodology. If I print out a transaction detail report from my broker, and white-out my personal details, and other stuff we both agreed did not need to be displayed, and along with that, I prepare an Excel reconciliation, that takes my current balance today and adjusts it to back out losses that clearly are not ICT methodology related, and then let you pick a population of wins, let’s say three, that I had to justify by explaining the method that I learned, will you then retract the statements (and acknowledge that his methods do work, at least in my case, and I honestly, I was the slow kid in his class) if I proved a consistently grown 40% ROI from the period if October 1, 2011 through today.
I’m not trying to be pedantic, just brainstorming to see if we could agree. Let me know if you think this idea is fair.
Hogarste, if you think that there is an edge using ICT methodology and want to prove it to everyone, why don’t you use you thread to explain your trades before you enter the market and post a myfxbook account?
Say what?!..jk…this thread is for ICT bashing lol…don’t you already have a thread for discussing the methodology?
That is a very logical suggestion, but I’d want to be careful before I accept it if I did. There is no way that I’m going to put myself into a corner like ICT did. Again, I was not at the top of the class, but was trading with his methods, and if the trades where I just said bleep it and gambled a little, not based on his teachings were backed out of my balance, my gain I think is at least 40%. I would hate to fail on a going forward basis, and let down the fellows doing much better than me.
Out of curiosity, what would the criteria be to say I made the point. What would I have to do, and for how long?
Sweet Pip are you going to report me for not bashing:-)
I would not even ask for a run down of three trades. Simply seeing an account that has grown consistently for a period of a year or more is all I would want to see as proof from anyone.
The only issue is i’m not sure what you mean by backing out losses. The proof that i’m talking about is a straight up account with nothing added or retracted in terms of trades taken that has been achieving the profit. Just a real (demo/cash) account history showing growth over that time period would count as proof for me. That is what I would see as supporting evidence, if the history has loosing trades taken out then it’s not an accurate reflection of how it’s been traded.