- From where, then, did you get the info that "they consistently outperform buy and hold for 10+ years now"?

- What does "they're the real deal" mean?

- Two years is not enough to test a strategy like this. 20 years would be better better, but it sounds like they already did that and the strategy fails half the time (hence the 10-year claim)? Does it fail randomly, or did they market a strategy that worked for the first 10 years, then didn't, and now have a new strategy with the same claims?

I'm asking these questions because people usually work hard for their money, and when someone makes (or relays) a claim that they can consistently multiply it better than expected, skepticism and scrutiny is imperative.

▲

wolfman1 3 days ago | parent [-]

They're the real deal means they're not a scam.

I don't know everything about their business. I recommend just looking at their website. They've been in business for nearly 20y and have consistently outperformed buy & hold.

▲

ImPostingOnHN 3 days ago | parent [-]

> they're not a scam.

Nobody explicitly said it was a scam, just that the claims are questionable and unverified. There's certainly no shortage of people on the internet who claim to have a get-rich-quicker-than-average scheme with claims exactly along these lines. Obviously those claims should be verified.

> I recommend just looking at their website.

A random website can't be trusted as an unbiased source about itself. I did check their website, but couldn't find anything there regarding your claims that was independently verified.

> [Chris has] consistently outperformed buy & hold [for 10+ years].

This is literally one of the most common hook/marketing lines from investment advice "businesses"/scammers.

---> Where did you learn this? <---

---> How do you know it is true? <---

^--- These questions should be answered if one wishes to avoid scams, just as a general life rule.

> They've been in business for nearly 20y

If Chris has been in business for 20 years, and Chris' strategy has worked for 10 of those years, that means Chris' strategy works 50% the time.

Thus, even if the claims of beating the market for 10 out of 20 years were true, that could be easily explained by random chance.

▲

wolfman1 3 days ago | parent [-]

There must have been a misunderstanding.

They've been around since 2008 and appear to have beaten SPX yearly since then.

I'm sure he has thousands of people that will vouch for him. Ask around on Reddit, etc. if you're curious.

▲

ImPostingOnHN 3 days ago | parent [-]

> They've been around since 2008 and appear to have beaten SPX yearly since then

=====> Where did you learn that? <=====

====> How do you know it is true? <====

I appreciate that you built a cool thing, and appreciate even more that you're sharing it (even if you're selling too, I respect hustle).

That said, struggling with the concept of hypothesis/claims testing isn't a reassuring look for someone selling an investment product.

▲

wolfman1 3 days ago | parent [-]

Thanks!

My claim is that The Technical Trades (TTT) was the only service that worked for me. I stand by that. And I have no affiliation with TTT. Beyond that, please contact Chris if you want more detailed proof of their track record.

	▲	3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	ImPostingOnHN 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You're selling an investment strategy, and the below two questions speak to how how you evaluate investment strategies. > [TTT] appear to have beaten SPX yearly since [2008] ⁰ Where/how did you learn that they "appear to have beaten SPX yearly since 2008"? How did you evaluate the truthfulness of that claim? 0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44322687