Since most of the following review reads negatively, I think it’s worth noting at the outset that the staff at EA was responsive and helpful. Particularly, Chris Henry, the lead trainer: He’s an excellent communicator, extremely patient and very well-versed in his trade (pardon the pun). Larry, the technical support arm, is lightning fast, and Chris Dunn (the founder), though I had minimal interaction with him, seemed like a sincere, helpful, and enthusiastic person who loves to trade as much as I do. With all that said, I hope this helps…
I joined EA and purchased the MAP trading system because I believed it would mitigate much of the subjectivity I had struggled with in the markets. I also liked how EA employed the “positive-expectancy model” as part of its business rules—basically, a favorable win-percentage combined with a favorable risk-reward. Could it get any simpler than MAP: go short when the background is magenta and you get a valid technical setup with favorable risk-reward; and go long when the background is cyan and you get a valid setup with favorable risk-reward—there’s no way to mess that up, right? Not so fast…
What I discovered after becoming an EA student is that the objectivity I thought I was getting with MAP didn’t exist to the degree I had expected. Rather, what I found was that a key term in the trading room was “compelling.” In other words, trade setups not only had to meet the fairly objective technical requirements, but also had to conform to the not-so objective “favorable market environment.” That’s to say that you could have a perfectly valid trade setup in itself, but unless it’s “compelling,” it’s a setup that should be avoided. SPOILER ALERT: Being able to distinguish a compelling setup from a not-so-compelling setup is what ultimately makes the difference between success and failure with the MAP approach; regrettably, it’s the most subjective aspect of the system. After several months of pouring my heart, soul, and countless hours into studying and learning MAP, I found myself disillusioned of the notion that it offered the objectivity I desired. Before you think I’m completely naïve about some inescapable realities of the market, I do realize that any discretionary system, by definition, entails subjectivity—MAP simply had more than I bargained for. If I had to rate it, I’d say it’s 60-percent objective and 40-percent subjective, whereas I was looking for something along the lines of 80/20.
Regarding the positive-expectancy element of MAP, it’s important to mention the risk-reward factor. During my pre-purchase research, there was much ado about a 1:2 risk-reward ratio; not being new to trading, I realized that’s a good starting point for success. What I discovered after joining, however, is that the staff teaches a multiple-target approach to profit-taking (that’s not to say you have to trade that way). As with just about everything else in trading, the multiple-target methodology has its pros and cons. For example, if you trade 2 contracts, your initial risk is $125 to open a trade (i.e., 5 ticks), but if you’re stepping off between 6-8 ticks ($75-$100) on your first contract (very common, btw) and your second contract is stopped-out at break-even, you’ve effectively gotten yourself into a 1:1 (or worse) risk-reward scenario. Additionally, at the risk of sounding petty, I adopted the mistaken notion that the marketed 1:2 initial risk-reward literally meant 1:2, but many times it turned out to mean 1:1.50 or 1:1.75. Just an FYI on that so that you’re not surprised if you decide to join.
Another thing I wish I would’ve known before joining EA is that the market-recap videos are infrequently updated. As of this writing, the most current video in the member’s area was posted three weeks ago. Perhaps I’m in the minority on this, but I find recap videos (i.e., getting post-market analysis from the experts) to be insightful and helpful, especially in the beginning stages. When those videos are absent, it’s reasonable to begin questioning whether or not the system works as well as advertised, especially if you’re unable to join the trading room that day to see how things went with the more experienced members, which segues to my next point…
The live-trading room is overpriced. Once your subscription runs out, the annual cost is approximately $1,900 per year. This seems excessive since you’ve already committed a substantial sum of money ($5,000 in my case) to become a member. Furthermore, other trading educators that charge a comparable amount for their training packages often (not always) include a lifetime subscription to their live room as part of the deal. Granted, I agreed to the terms as they were, so I have myself to blame if I think it’s unfair; nevertheless, it seems reasonable, based on normative standards, that a $5,000 package would include lifetime access to such a helpful resource—ah well. An additional note on the live room, the hours and days are fairly limited. When I had room access, they typically wrapped things up in the “Advanced Room” (where the live trading was moderated) around 11:30 – 12:00 EST; i.e., they didn’t provide coverage in the afternoon. Also, they only moderated the “Advanced Room” three days a week. There was talk of opening a room during the entire market session, but I don’t know if that ever came to pass.
Also worth mentioning, if you’re the type of trader that has to be in 5-10 trades by 11:00 EST, this system is not for you. You’ll certainly be your own worst enemy as sitting on your hands is especially essential to the success of this system, particularly in non-favorable market environments (assuming you’re fortunate enough to figure out exactly what that means someday). Of course, the slower pace of the system doesn’t make it bad, but just be sure you know your trading personality so you can determine if MAP is a good fit.
The MAP software requires a fairly robust computer to run it without lag. I initially traded MAP on a 2Ghz Pentium Processor with 2GB RAM, but routinely had 2-3 ticks of negative slippage on my stops as a result of the lag (fortunately I was on sim then). The problem was remedied after purchasing a high-end Falcon Trading system, but my reason for mentioning this is that the extra cost ($2000) was unaccounted for in my purchase decision. In case you’re thinking my situation was unique, some of the other traders in the live room expressed similar concerns and mentioned that they also ended up purchasing higher-end computers to solve the problem.
On the topic of unanticipated cost, you should also know that MAP only works on the NinjaTrader (NT) platform (last I checked anyway). I believe older versions of it also ran on TradeStation, but you’ll have to consult EA for more info on that. As for NT, you can trade sim for free, assuming you get free data from your broker, but you’ll have to lease or purchase the NT platform when you decide to go live. I purchased NT for $1,000, it’s an excellent platform and worth every penny. I’m only pointing this out for those of you who may be cost-sensitive and not realize that this is a factor.
I’ve written this to help you make a more-informed decision. The type of input I’ve provided is what I wish I knew before making my decision to join EA. And in case you’re wondering how I did with MAP, I basically broke even with commissions after one year of trading, which means I lost $8,000 if you consider the MAP software/training (-$5,000), the new computer (-$2,000), and the NT Platform (-$1,000). Of course, that’s not to say that you’ll have the same results—you may do better…you may do worse. However and whatever you end up doing, I wish you the best in your trading endeavors.
This review is the subjective opinion of an Investimonials member and not of Investimonials LLC
8 of 9 people have found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful?
Yes
No