|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
myron zolkewsky wrote:
>
> Then Norm, if these crooks KNOW that people will fail, then why the hell
> don't they return their checks before cashing them!!!! They are as damn
> greedy as anyone.... if their systems makes them thousands of thousands of
> dollars, hell, they can afford to give their crap away and rely on the
> "trader" sending money in on the honor system! Don't give us that bull.
NW: So Myron, are you willing to give everyone on RT your trading
system and let them pay you on the honor system? Maybe we can take it
one step further, you post your trading system including the real time
real money
track record and let all try it and send at the end of one year whatever
they think it is worth. Ok? I think you have a great idea for an
experiment and I can't wait to see how it comes out.
Experimentally,
Norman
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nwinski <nwinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 2:47 PM
> Subject: Re: GEN - Fighting Fraud
>
> >Brent Aston wrote:
> >>
> >> December 2, 1997
> >>
> >> Real Traders,
> >>
> >> I have a suggestion for all of us sapsuckers that have to try and
> sort out
> >> good Trading Systems, Programs, Information, and various offers. Here it
> >> is, when you get one of the above products that you are interested in you
> >> reply by offering about 10% of the asking price along with a guarantee to
> >> set up an account with X amount of dollars and to trade to the best of
> your
> >> ability that product for 3 to 6 months. As soon as net profits exceed the
> >> full cost of the product you simply pay for it. If the creators of these
> >> products have real faith in their creations they should have no problem
> >> with this plan. If you have losses its no pay! (If they really have guts
> >> they should reimburse you.) If many traders did this I think it would go
> a
> >> long way toward fighting fraud in this industry.
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> > Brent,
> > In a perfect world this might work. But the world is inhabited by
> >humans so things are not that simple.
> > So let's pretend that Brent is a systems vendor with a great trading
> >system that is right 75% of the time and a good win loss ratio. You tell
> >Joe Customer that all he has to do is follow the system for six months
> >and he will have the money to pay you. You call back in six months
> >believing that he has followed the system and that he will soon be
> >sending you a check. Surprise!! Joe Customer says that he went on
> >vacation and missed that big move in the S&Ps and then his wife got sick
> >so he missed the big profit Silver move. Hoever, he did do the porkbelly
> >trade, lost the maximum risk of $500 and got disccoraged about 4 months
> >ago and stopped trading your system. So, why didn't he call your toll
> >free assistance line and talk to you or e-mail you four months ago? That
> >is one of the great mysteries of the universe. Unless the burden is on
> >the trader to perform, the vendor is not likely to get paid. What
> >guarantee is there for the vendor that the customer will follow the
> >system? NONE!! In fact, most people will find a way to either not follow
> >the system or screw it up. It is only when the customer has a
> >substantial stake at risk that the vendor has any chance of gettting the
> >customer's undivided attention. And that only applies to the 5-10% of
> >traders that have what it takes to be winners.
> > The reputable vendors have to put up with the 95% of traders who
> >would lose even if they had tommorow's chart today. Those losers look to
> >blame their own inabilities on whatever "holly grail" they last
> >purchased.
> >Yes, there is alot of garbage being sold by trading system and market
> >advisory vendors. But, even if 90% is junk that is better than the
> >batting average that general trading public has demonstrated for trading
> >futures.
> > So, there are two sides to this story. Most vendors leave much to be
> >desired, but so does the trading public in the capacity to use these
> >services or products to make trading profits. Brent, I don't think you
> >would want to take the other side of your proposal for very long.
> >
> >Balancedly,
> >
> >Norman
> >
|