|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
AMPWood@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Does anyone have experience with either Winning Edge by
> Ned Gandevani
I was an early student of Ned's, and I have to concur with Dale
<DLCRL@xxxxxxx>. Ned is a very nice and likeable guy, though I have
to say he's not the world's best teacher. His methodology is very
subjective, with a few firm S/R points and many subjective rules
about when you should believe them.
I personally had a lot of trouble calling reliable signals. After
studying the system for several months, I paper-traded it in realtime
for 2 weeks, and averaged 4.0 handles a day. Not bad for just
starting out, I figured, so it was time to trade it for real. So I
started trading it with real $$ (on big contracts, stupidly), and
managed to take 7 losers in a row. I'd call a trade, and it would
start out in my direction, suddenly spike just to or 1 tick past my
stop, then continue 4-8pts in the direction I'd called. This
happened on 4 of the 7 trades. (The other 3 just didn't work at
all.) So after taking a loss, I'd sit out a few trades to lick my
wounds, and every trade I called was picture-perfect. Then I'd get
back in and *wham*, get nailed again.
After 7 of those 1-3pt losers, my way-too-small account was decimated
to the level where I felt I had to quit trading the methodology. I
have to take much of the blame, though -- if I'd started out with
Eminis I could have taken the losses, stayed in there and taken the
next trades which turned out winners, and come out well ahead. I
might still be trading Ned's system today if I'd done that.
Some day I'd like to get back to Ned's methodology. It has a lot to
it that I like. But in the meantime I've decided system trading is
better for me, and for my account. :-) I've decided I'm really not
very good at discretionary trading, and mechanical systems are a
better match for my skills. If you're better at discretionary calls,
you might do a lot better than I did.
I also agree with Dale's comment that you can't go by what Ned says
when looking at a trade setup. He seems to process the action of the
market on a second-by-second basis, and asking him about a trade even
a minute or two before entry is no guarantee that he hasn't changed
his mind in that intervening minute.
However, I've spoken to several people who sat in on a trading day
with Ned. They confirm that the guy really is an absolute wizard,
calling winner after winner (real trades), and passing on setups that
turned out to be losers. Although his explanation for a particular
move was often something that was never covered in the course, or
maybe covered only in his advanced course. According to those
people, the fantastic results you see in his free trial emails are
the honest results that Ned produces. But whether *you* can
duplicate his results is an entirely different question.
Gary
|