I encourage a reread of this post. He says he adds things for a real world example.
He purposefully woke up late.
He purposefully disregarded analysis.
He purposefully made poor entries.
He purposefully made more trades.
He purposefully allowed himself to lose pips.
He purposefully disregarded the calendar.
Now watch the video or read the transcript where he never references the above and in fact admitted that his concepts do not always work, that he’s having a rough start, and that he did not purposefully take losing trades.
Master Tang, popinjay, dantheman53, or any other supporter. I am begging you to either accept the basic truth here or rationally explain why he would tell such drastically different stories.
Don’t flame. Don’t hate. I didn’t bring this topic up. But now that it’s here, I’d actually like to address it. No half answers. No special passes because his concepts might work for some. Just a flat out admission that it’s apparent the man lied. No I told you so’s. That’s already inherent.
Big Deal. I’m the guy who created the Anti-ICT thread ffs, but i couldn’t care less about the insignificant inconsistencies in this thread. This thread isn’t about ICT’s saintly moral excellence. I may be an unprofitable skeptic but at least I have the common sense to shut my mouth about this challenge first for a few months or so. Pointless thread is pointless.
Im not insulting anyone if YOU DONT BELIEVE ICT go check out his videos and try out his tools for a year if you fail THEN come here and do what u want. You just shooting blanks speaking about nonsense
Possibly getting off topic, but this seems the right thread for that anyway
Loyal but unprofitable ICT followers?? I am guessing that you’d like to put the blame squarely on ICT for people who are unprofitable when they trade his methods???
Firstly, traders can be given exact methods and fail when the person who taught it flourishes. That is because there is so much more to it than just identifying a buy or sell. 3 M’s come into it. Mind, Method and Money. Shouldn’t have to explain that too much as it is hopefully obvious (not trying to be a smart arse there).
Now, I am not an ICT follower, although I am starting to read up a bit on his methods for things that I might be able to use for my own trading, but I believe ICT has given out a huge amount of information on tools a trader can use in his Forex armoury. He has not laid out a trading plan and that is something others need to work out for themselves. A person cannot be blamed for not making someone profit because that person did not use the tool correctly, or had emotional issues while in the trade (we have all been there before when we started).
Some people make things a bit hard as well. Imagine trying to trade when you have 100 trading tools in your belt and you try to use all of them. Wont work. People should hopefully grab a few tools that resonate with them, test them in demo over a period of time to ensure its effectiveness, then deploy into the real world. That is what demo is for - testing of a method before going live.
Now, back to topic. Let’s sit back for a week or two and see what transpires on myfxbook
If it doesn’t work for you, that’s fine. Doesn’t mean it wont work. More in forex trading than just a method. Method, Mind and Money Management are all keys. Find a trading method that does work for you and spend your time on that.
Remember, there are methods that work which are simple - there must be. However, it seems to be largely acepted that 90% or so of Forex traders lose their money. If a method worked, wouldn’t everyone be on to it by now and the number reduced?? I think not.
Methods work. But they are inherently discretionary. As a result two people can adopt a methodology and result in different results.
Tassiefx, no one is contesting that ICT offers tools that can provide a winning methodology to traders. He himself has demonstrated that such tools do not always work.
when I use my phone I noticed the pic is small, but it’s normal size on my desktop computer (google chrome)
here is a link to the bigger version though: View image: crisco jan25
Thank you to MasterGunner for doing the heavy lifting. I haven’t been available, and he’s obviously more knowledgeable and articulate.
I was the member who – after hearing ICT’s video comments contradict what he’d just posted here (and, frankly, surprised he even posted at all after he said he was “making a clean break” with BabyPips Forum) – posted bits of his video transcript including an outright lie:
In his post here (MG has quoted it a few times), ICT claims to have lost pips on purpose. When someone in the chatroom during his video asks him that very question (Did you intentionally lose?), ICT answers NO, he legitimately lost pips and it wasn’t intentional.
Until ICT (primarily), and those defending him (secondarily), acknowledge this flat-out lie (or misrepresentation if you prefer), none of you have any credibility. BTW, that’s not the only contradiction between his statements on the video and his post here. If you can’t acknowledge this simple reality laid bare, then nothing you subsequently say has any value.
This is not to be critical (I sincerely appreciate the effort ICT has made, hope he trades well, and hope we all learn from the experience); this is simply a fact.
Heck, call it a “mistake” if it makes you feel better … but at least acknowledge it – so we can get this issue behind us – before continuing your defensive (or offensive?) commentary. :20:
I became convinced that the live trading thing was a teaching excercise a few days ago.
I am a student of ICT methods right from the start, I could see that what was happening was NOT what I had been learning but it WAS exactly how I used to trade, the tin hat was when profits were given back to Mr Market - for that reason I did’nt follow the trades.
What convinced me?
Three days ago I again looked at the videos back in 2011 of the live trades - the starting amount was similar, the idea was similar - the big difference was the action, plus 200% in 2 months, from a teaching perspective this was not good - it did not teach - it did was show that the tools were dynamite in the right hands - but it did not show how NOT to trade.
Since those old videos ICT’s teaching has been completely renewed - there is (rightly) a great emphasis on the cautionary, on the need for discipline, on the professional approach, on consistency, on all the things that we need to do to have
longevity ( a word used often in the teaching videos) in this trading business.
Many people discuss the ICT tools and their use, many discuss ICT’s trading ability and so on, one thing that can get overlooked - the difficult task it is to attempt to educate, to teach trading in general and forex in particular to newbies who have been fed so much ‘get rich quick’ propaganda.
This very week I received an email from a respectable broker with whom I have a small live a/c ( I like their charting ) - they offered me a ‘free’ 150 usd safety net, they will cover all losses up to 150.00 over the next 5 days - the only strings are I must open 5 trades in that time - recently I opened a demo a/c to try out a new technique, I got bombarded with telephone calls urging me to open a small live a/c.
Type into google the word ‘forex’ and you will be bombarded with adverts for the rest of your days if your cookie security is low.
And ICT is trying to teach in this environment to the very same target base as these professional (and powerful) marketers.
Well done ICT in showing us how not to trade in real life.
He was obviously speaking in half-truths in the video. But he did not try to lose money. He was intentionally sloppy and myopic with the full knowledge that it would produce lackluster results. Do you see the difference?
He is full of misinformation. Quoting people from chatrooms where they have said this and that, but it turns out they have said something completely different.
It wasn’t just a half truth, Aaron. He flat out told a lie. There really is no working around this one. It really becomes a discredit to you, and you really are a good guy that shouldn’t subject himself to that.
It’s okay to separate the man from the method. Finding fault in the man, is not finding fault in the method.
