EU - I’m not sure we disagree about anything. Except perhaps that I don’t believe poker is a better education 
Over-leveraged trading is a form of gambling but when your account blows up the education is much more valuable than losing your shirt at Vegas. But only if you have trading in your blood.
Let’s just thank god that Ross took down his web-site. You know - the one that claimed something like 200,000% return and was filled with credit card sign-ups.
This is from Ross’s own system description.
"-- No trades the first 9 months. Trades through Jan 07 were just playing with some methods (no subscribers were allowed). The serious track record starts with March 07."
Anyone can look at the equity curve and see the serious track record looks about the same as when he claimed to be playing with some methods, after the fact.
whoopee
since you are incapable of grasping what I said and only seem useful for creating monikers such as "Mr. Always-know-how-to-trade-in-theory"
You may talk to your computer. I don’t put many on ignore, but you classify as one.
Yes, and part of that position was:
"Somehow, people think that unless people put up a system, and fail like the other 99.5% of vendors, that they are unable to trade."
Which is exactly how you reasoned in the case of Gilbert, too.
Another part was this:
"In fact, I see people who demand that someone else trade a "profitable" system to prove their knowledge as somewhat pathetic."
I agree with this to some extent. Exposing false claims or dangerous trading habits of others is something you can do on basis of logical reasoning even if you have no trading system. But you went beyond that. You bragged that you are a better trader than Eu. At C2, when you claim that, you should put up or shut up. This is the morale that you tried to teach Gilbert, Brad Goldman, and many others. It applies to you too.
Ross, do everyone at C2 a favor, go out and get laid!!!
thanks for summarizing your knowledge of trading.
… failed trader has a permanent fear for a trading, but some category of the traders is still addicted to the market and they have to self-protect their psychic by participating in around-market activity
Great idea. I like it. It will be very easy to show to whole world how good I am. As a side effect I will self-protect my psychic and will be happy.
I’ll create pseudo trading system named “Review of popular C2 Systems…” and to whatever trading system I’ll see, I say: It is bad. Realy bad. It will collapse soon or later.
And I will be right 90% of time, because we all know, that 90% systems fails.
I will be GREAT GURU. (But you are not allowed ask me, what system will make money.)
"Which is exactly how you reasoned in the case of Gilbert, too. "
Obviously untrue. Ther reasoning on Gilbert was about someone who makes a lot of false claims, as Gilbert admitted falsfying on 2 of the 3 things I tried to get clarification as to their truth (that President of an Institute actually only meant his cell phone number/website and that when he said Chief Trader, he really only meant himself). The fact that he claims 7 years of over 50% annual returns for real subscribers was so obviously false, it wasn’t even funny. As soon as he came here, he cratered two systems, which makes it obvious he never had the returns he claimed.
"You bragged that you are a better trader than Eu. At C2, when you claim that, you should put up or shut up."
No one bragged, so you are quite mistaken. I made no charges against Eu’s trading. Eu claimed I was a theoretical trader, and frankly, he has no idea of how I trade on my own. My response is because my “theoretical trading” would blow up what Eu is showing here on C2. And if it must, my posted results already blow away Eu’s posted results, experimental or not. Holding cash in a CD at the bank outperforms Eu’s stable of "systems"
I am done responding to or reading any further posts on this particular thread, as I see no purpose in again re-restating what I already said.
"Which is exactly how you reasoned in the case of Gilbert, too. "
Obviously untrue. Ther reasoning on Gilbert was about someone who makes a lot of false claims, as Gilbert admitted falsfying on 2 of the 3 things I tried to get clarification as to their truth (that President of an Institute actually only meant his cell phone number/website and that when he said Chief Trader, he really only meant himself). The fact that he claims 7 years of over 50% annual returns for real subscribers was so obviously false, it wasn’t even funny. As soon as he came here, he cratered two systems, which makes it obvious he never had the returns he claimed.
"You bragged that you are a better trader than Eu. At C2, when you claim that, you should put up or shut up."
No one bragged, so you are quite mistaken. I made no charges against Eu’s trading. Eu claimed I was a theoretical trader, and frankly, he has no idea of how I trade on my own. My response is because my “theoretical trading” would blow up what Eu is showing here on C2. And if it must, my posted results already blow away Eu’s posted results, experimental or not. Holding cash in a CD at the bank outperforms Eu’s stable of "systems"
I am done responding to or reading any further posts on this particular thread, as I see no purpose in again re-restating what I already said.
Will you guys cut it out? Every day, 90% of the messages are from you flaming each other. You’re not gonna reach an agreement, so agree to disagree, or whatever, and leave it at that.
Perhaps my understanding of the English language is too poor. Do you say that "I am quite able to trade rings around you, Eu" does not mean that you claim to be a better trader than Eu? That is how I interpreted it; like one runner who is running circles around another runner.
You are right, my apologies for letting myself go (again)
How did this take such a detour? I just wanted to address why systems are priced where they’re at, and I hope shared some of the logic. It seems nobody was interested in discussing the subject for any length of time.
First: awesome Internet Comedy Gold, as usual when Ross visits. I’d think anyone trying to reason with him would have given up at this point – but I’m glad you haven’t. Good reading!
Second: Beau, you have costs whether you have or accept subscribers or not. Those costs exist and persist in order for you to trade or track your system in real-time. Any potential subscribers don’t give a damn about your costs.
It’s a classic business decision, and no one can make it for you. Have a high price, and no subscribers – but when you get a few you’re covering your overhead and making a little money? Etc, etc.
I’d suggest starting cheap. Not free, but cheap. In 3 months, if your clients have made money raise your price. Rinse/repeat. They won’t complain about the subscription increases if they’re making money. Give them a heads up via messaging or system subscription that this is your plan, and it such increases would be well received.
Yes Jules - you read it wrong. Trading rings means “zero dollars in his trading account”.
I’ll chip in to help him get laid
Ah, of course, that must be it. 
