The Trading Zoo


I've started this topic because I am under the impression that ahk works with The Trading Zoo and he is active on this forum and may be able to provide information and comments about this service.

I believe that it will be constructive to have a topic/thread dedicated to The Trading Zoo so that the merits of this service can be discussed in isolation to the other topics which have collectively dealt with several trading services in the same topic including The Trading Zoo.
Good points pt. We need an objective disinterested third party to pass an opinion on the achievability of the claimed results using the stated system. Perhaps assign a "realism factor" to the results showing that XX% of the claimed results would have been achieved if the rules had been followed to the letter. (This figure could of course be over 100% if the people trading the system do not follow the rules and the rules do better than them.)
I believe individuals need to make their own determination on their own time without any third party influence and test drive before they buy. This is why I offered a trial in the first place and I believe that is the best way to evaluate. Seeing and hearing the calls made without any distraction. Simm trade the calls or write them down (I don't recommend trading one's real account during trials--that is a distraction). And get a feel for how the room operates and whether it fits with your trading style and personality. That's important also.

The best part of this is it won't cost one red cent and you can draw your own conclusions without the influence of this forum.

How anyone could twist the points made above into a web of deceit calling me and the room a scam is beyond comprehension.
I inadvertantly forgot to include this link in my last post.

http://www.mypivots.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1280
yes, ideally an objective third party would be best, but obviously the vendor would have to agree to the idea.
quote:
Originally posted by ahk

...This is why I offered a trial in the first place and I believe that is the best way to evaluate. Seeing and hearing the calls made without any distraction. Simm trade the calls or write them down (I don't recommend trading one's real account during trials--that is a distraction). And get a feel for how the room operates and whether it fits with your trading style and personality.
One of the problems with that approach is one of time. If you, as a new trader, wish to evaluate a number of systems, and take a 1 week trial of each of (say) 10 systems, and sim trade those systems then you have spent 2.5 months evaluating systems. Those 10 weeks can be considered an opportunity cost - i.e. you are not earning an income while you are doing this.

Say that all 10 systems turn out to be unsuitable (unusable, cons) then you are 10 weeks worth of work poorer than when you started the evaluations.

That is why prescreening a system by a third party can add value and confidence to a system. A potential customer might add The Trading Zoo to the list of services that they will evaluate because it has been verified, prescreened or tested by a third party.
If the vendor is highly confident in the true quality of their service, they would support the idea of an independent review. If on the other hand, the vendor is primarily interested in making new contacts with prospective customers, then an independent review would significantly hinder that goal.
I would submit that a new trader not be in a hurry to trade. View the 10 weeks or whatever time it takes as a learning period rather than opportunity costs. The odds of success are stacked against all traders and new ones are the most vulnerable to losing money fast.

So, it pays in the long run to do your homework.

I'm opening up a small clean (only room trades) account for my LLC starting in 2007 and will consider sharing the results after a month or two with people who have contacted me and took the trial. Statements will come directly from the broker.

I couldn't agree more...but I don't think this will happen from this vendor judging from the replies so far
quote:
Originally posted by pt_emini

If the vendor is highly confident in the true quality of their service, they would support the idea of an independent review. If on the other hand, the vendor is primarily interested in making new contacts with prospective customers, then an independent review would significantly hinder that goal.

Like i said...I told you to go back and read the thread, not just one post, you will find I said this....

"as with any vendor do your own research before commiting to any program"

You seem to have selected only one post and didn't even read the newest member to the Good vendors section....

So you continue to twist and turn....get back to me when you can catch me on something..I can't wait to hear what you have to say about Trade Tutor....lol..so much anger Barry....let it go..You 're busted

Bruce
quote:
Originally posted by ahk

This is your first post in which you promoted rjh. I checked my glasses and read this many times, but I can't seem to find where you tell people to do their own due diligence.
Bruce, I'm glad to see your post was done before your much appreciated apology. For a minute, I thought you had a relapse.
For what it's worth, I was an original Trading Zoo student. Sam Baum's system was dangerous, all counter-trend with short profit targets with larger invisible stops.

A few of us students started out own Skype room to ignore the teacher's setups but rather take in his priceless information regarding the e-mini, which alone was worth the $6,000 as I gained a true understanding of how to read and trade ANY liquid market. I think one of the traders using our new modified trend setups with trailing stops actually sent someone his trading statements to someone on another forum years ago which shut the naysayer up quick.

Anyways, Trading Zoo is back but run by some of the traders who have been successful for over the past 6 years using our modified system.
I want to personally promote this because of all the original TradingZoo did for me.