Scalping Technique Made Easy

Quoting amaruenterprise

Disliked

If I'm not mistaken I believe he has. Speaking for myself I think anyone that posts their statement is being very courtious because I don't think it is anybody business about your financle situation. Where I come from a man's word means everything; not all people are honest but instead of bashing someone ( if you want to call it that, may be a little harsh) to me is senseless it doesn't accomplish nothing IMO. If you see an interesting system test it and if it doesn't work try something else. It may work for some and may not you. But I'm pretty sure if you go back to some of the other threads WHTENN talks about the manual system. Have a good one guys....

Ignored

Quoting WHTenn

Disliked

"i now see you have turned this into a commercial venture over at forex-tsd. good luck with your swindle, sir."

That remark that Merlin made was not based on the merits of the program at all. It was based on a falling out that he and steinitz had after he decided to leave this forum after being a moderator.

Ignored

Quoting Razzle

Disliked

WHTenn, thanks for your response.

I personally can see no problem whatsoever in asking people to contribute $50 to assist in the development of an EA. The problem for me occurs when Steintz starts to actively promote the EA as something that it quite clearly is not.

Given the hype surrounding this product I recently made enquiries via Don's website. In response to my enquiry I was informed that the EA in question was a highly sophisticated product, highly configurable, and profitable. He even went so far as to state that the EA never loses.

In support of these claims he supplied data derived from a number of back and forward tests, undertaken by various advocates of the system.

However, on closer inspection I found that each forward test provided as a representative indication of the performance of this EA, covered only a very limited period of time, and furthermore, the results provided where limited only to periods in which the EA performed well. Those periods in which the EA performed poorly where ignored and ommitted. Whilst such manipulation is fairly obvious and indeed expected, to someone who's watching the drama unfoldover the last few months, it may possibly be highly misleading to his target market of new and inexperienced traders

The absence of long term back tests really is quite beyond belief, and given that the system has been in development for 6 months one might assume that there might be individuals who had long term forward tests available.



There seams to be a tendency of restarting demo accounts once a month, publically promoting the increase in balance, whilst conviniently forgetting the floating losses. Whilst this may promote sales to the gullible and inexperienced, it’s not particularly conducive to ongoing development.

Don, and indeed a number of his more vocal supporters are very well aware of an issue regarding high unrealised losses. Despite being aware of this situation the statements provided to market his product show only balance, not equity. Anyone reliant on the information provided from Don prior to making a purchase would be completely unaware of this issue.

You claim to be an experienced trader, and if that’s the case you know that the performance of an EA is highly dependant on the time that the EA is initially attached to the chart. You might start your tests at 9AM and either by good luck, or good judgement you get locked in phase with the market and the EA can do no wrong, it makes a bucket load of cash. The other guy starts 4 hours sooner or 4 hours later and he’s locked out of phase and suffers loss after loss. It’s the same EA, same settings, same broker, same data feed, yet completely different results. Now add a few twists such as different data feeds, people manually closing trades, you can see why results aren’t repeatable across all users. Whilst this is blatently obvious to most with a little experience, it isn’t obvious to everyone.



I would suggest that the underlying philosophy on which this EA is based is flawed; in all likelihood you have no better than a random entry and exit.


Therefore claims of profits by one user are inevitably going to be counteracted by claims of losses by another. The wide variety of results currently being reported by users of this EA show this to be exactly the case.



Maybe your lucky, maybe your a highly skilled and experienced trader, maybe you’re a shrill, but until we see consistent results from the whole user base of the EA, your posts serve no purpose. You claim to be contacting members of this forum by unsolicited PM in order to help them, whilst this may be the case, I personally can’t see how charging $50 to provide a mechanism by which some will make money, and others will lose is actually helping people; surely they’d have more fun visiting a casino?

You read and post on various forum's, you can see that purchasers of the EA have concerns, you can see variability in results reported, and in some cases that users have suffered real losses, but despite being aware of these issues, you continue to promote the product.


If Don wishes to ask for financial assistance in developing a method, on the explicit understanding that the purchaser is paying to assist in the development of a strategy, with absolutely no guarantee of success, than that of course is absolutely fine. However selling an EA commercially, via his website, and claiming that this is an EA that never loses, and then attempting to mislead and misdirect the consumer by backing those claims by the use of highly selective test results ranges from sharp business practice, to fraud depending on ones jurisdiction.

Given the sensitive nature of Don's relationship with the moderators at forex factory, it’s important that all posts promoting this EA are above board. When posts such as your own continually promote the product, it’s inevitable that others may wish to post to redress that balance, or question inconsistencies in your posts.

I believe that Steintz’s intentions are honourable; lets face it, no one in their right mind would go to such lengths just to earn a few thousand bucks, but really, until Don starts trading his own system, on a live account, others really shouldnt take it upon themselves to promote an untried product. Im also noticing an increasing number of post from yourself on commercial threads critisising the performance of other EA's, what exactly is your adgenda ?

Ignored

Quoting Mina

Disliked

seeing all of you doubting WHTenn's intentions I had to say this
I received pms from WHtenn before alerting me to new versions of an indicator I was once interested in and no it wasn't a commercial one and it wasn't his indi so yes I believe he is just trying to help
and btw I don't trade the steinitz method - the modified has is too lagging for my taste

Ignored

Quoting steinitz

Disliked

I am attaching all my indicators for my "Steinitz HAS MTF" method. Please start here on the thread as I have come a long way and this is a good point to begin unless Merlin decides to put this in the recycle bin.

Don

Ignored

Quoting Chandra

Disliked

Hi Steinitz
I am earnestly following your both the threads.

In your "Scalping Made Easy" thread, you have posted all the indicators in your posting #47.
Similarly, you have posted the indicators in your ornginal thread on HAS.

In the same original thread you have also posted a .doc document giving the inputs for the two MTF HAS indicators.
The default color input sequence for 4 TF HAS Bar, and (MTF HAS Bar Lower A & MTF HAS Bar Higher A) is same as mentioned in your .doc manual (Sequence Red, Blue, Red, Blue, Red, Blue, Red, Blue in both indicators as well as in the manual document).

But, in the 4TF HAS Bar, and and (MTF HAS Bar Lower B & MTF HAS Bar Higher B), the color sequesnce is not same as it is in the manual document.
Please cofirm which sequence is the correct one, the default sequecne in the indicators or the one shown in the manual document.
Thanks for the great work.
-Vivek

Ignored

Quoting Chandra

Disliked

Hi Steinitz
I am earnestly following your both the threads.

Ignored

Quoting FXSurfer

Disliked

Here's a question.
Do the UPPER and LOWER A and B HAS refer to using
them on specific longer and shorter TF's or something?
Sorry to ask if this was already mentioned.

The lower A & B give you 1M to 30M or 5M to 1Hr

The Upper A & B give you 1Hr to week or 4Hr to month

For the chart setup that I posted earlier I just put the
Lower A on the chart first. Then, I put the Lower B
"inside" of the A by dragging it there from the navigator.
Is that it? Seems to work fine like that!

You need to drag and drop the upper A & B FIRST on top of each other THEN

You need to drag and drop the lower A & B SECOND on top of each other

You want to see TF's ascend from lower to higher starting at the bottom of screen.

Don

Yes, let's fire up this thread!
Many Thanks!

FXS

Ignored

Quoting WHTenn

Disliked

Hi Edge540

I was looking for a small number. I am experimenting to see if I can get small rapid trades while others are waiting for the large 50-80 pips that can take days to obtain. 16 trades in 15 hours was a good day.

It is not the pips that makes you money, it is the lots.

Why 12... I really can't answer why this number.

Good Luck

Ignored