What is the point of telling everyone that you have "invented the airplane", and then tell them that this airplane requires 10+ years of training to master, and that there is no actual training provided along with the airplane?
Anyone can claim that he made a super-AI computer that predicts the future, and the problem of all the subscribers' failed trades is simply because all of them failed to understand this super-sophisticated 72 models. The problem of failure is always on others, not being able to understand and decode the "array" and "reversals", and never on the models.
If you claim that Armstrong's stuffs are good, then DEMONSTRATE it. Anybody can talk about the "past" success, and nobody can verify it, because there is no way to distinguish that from fake paper trades.
Since you have traded successfully using such, how about showing your monthly brokerage statements for gains and all the trades that you did.
And show that in this forum that you can do that in real-time too.
By the way, you seemed to be an old timer with Armstrong, and yet you are a newbie on this forum, when all of the previous newbies have disappeared one by one, Strike Eagle, DigiLab, etc. And yeah, you pick up the trail where they left off in no time.
Can you be concise and to the point. I read it 5 times and still don´t get it. 1) I don´t claim anything;
2) If you were a member of any of the official Martin Armstrong / ECM-Traders slack group you would recognize me by the username as one of the most active members in the groups in last 4 years. I came to here because a new member on Socrates slack group that have attended WEC Rome few weeks ago have mention this group.
Showing Armstrong's stuffs work is easy. If you post 10 consecutive winning trades with 5+% gain using his models, then I think that there may be only about 1/(2^10) or 0.1% chance of Armstrong's models being incorrect, given that trading record.