wavepicker and I went to see a promotional “Lecture” on “WD Gann Building Blocks” in Melbourne, on the 4th of July presented by Glenn Kuppe covering Gann swing charts, “How to Square Price and Time”, and “The inside secrets of How to make fearless forecasts”. All this for just under $2000 for a 2 day seminar…
See: http://adest.com.au/seminars/free-gann-trading-lecture.htm
Interestingly Glenn Kuppe is currently listed as being the “Chief Operating Officer” of Peter G Moloney & Associates, a Futures Broking firm based in Melbourne, and is described as “…a Forex dealer for several international banks; thorough knowledge of currency futures and a regular seminar presenter on options and futures strategies”
http://www.pgm.net/about/contacts.htm
Like the adage out of “Forrest Gump” - You never know what you’re going to get, and the bizarre things that can be said in these promotional events never cease to amaze me. Well, this “Lecture” was no exception, read on…
So, what happened in the “Lecture”?:
The first half of the presentation was filled with all sorts of stories about the hardships of Kuppe’s parents, name dropping various Australian financial players, personal bragging such as an apocryphal story about making $2 Million for an unnamed bank or financial institution in a Forex arbitrage trade made in the 1980s, with his boss doing the reverse and losing $2 Million, and later sacking him in an internal political blame game to cover up his mistake.
When the actual technical component was finally presented much later, it looked like a very simplistic use of a Bowden like swing chart style and a rudimentary and incomplete version of McLaren’s pattern of trends (touching on the concept of “spacing” and counting of counter trends). The idea being that there are “fast” trends and “choppy” trends - essentially McLaren’s concepts of “normal” trends and “creeping” trends (which Kuppe did acknowledge).
While he displayed an understanding of the importance of counter trends, he did not demonstrate an appreciation of how these factor in time cycles (although in a teaser I can see why one would not outline this, but the presenter could at least show an inkling of understanding this in order to establish credibility – I suspect the former – that he just didn’t understand this).
He also addressed in a very cursory fashion a version of time and price squaring along the lines of Bryce T Gilmour’s “Geometry of the Markets” (although when later asked specific questions didn’t know of Gilmour). This involved a vertical measure of the price range from a high to a low, and then used this price extended out in days to find a time increment. To me this did not inspire confidence since this method is highly problematic without a lot of knowledge supporting this technique.
It struck me as odd when someone is ostensibly offering a “Gann” course, that rather than trying to establish their capability as a Gann practitioner and clearly outline the contents of their course with sufficient detail in order to evaluate it, they focus the majority of the information “Lecture” on trying to appear to be a “good bloke”, and establish their credentials via an association with financial institutions in the past.
You would expect when attending public presentations on serious financial topics that a speaker would maintain a degree of decorum and project an image of competence, wouldn’t you? Half way through this disjointed and rambling “lecture” Kuppe threw in the most amazingly crass “joke” about how trading the market was like “seducing a virgin” – not surprisingly, this little anecdote fell completely flat, and probably lost half the room (I noticed the women in the audience understandably squirming uncomfortably in their seats – not to mention some of the men too).
What I was expecting was a succinct outline of the course content, clear examples of the core course work, and a focus on which exact areas of Gann the presenter was drawing from, within a context of the different “schools” of interpretation. This is because the body of Gann’s works can be divided into specific techniques and approaches; hence I wanted to know if the focus was on “geometric styles” or “astrological styles”, or both.
If the content was on geometric styles, I wanted to know in detail which precise areas were going to be covered. Since there was a mention of price and time squared, and a mention of time cycles, this was just too broad a comment without qualification, especially if you have to blindly outlay almost $2000 in order to find out which particular approach and interpretation the “lecturer” would be presenting.
My assumption being that any “Geometric Gann” presenter should be across a range of different geometric interpretations such as Bill McLaren, Bryce T Gilmore, Brad Cowan, and perhaps David Bowden (at least an idea of what his core approaches are – but understandable if one was reluctant to upfront thousands of dollars for each tiny morsel on techniques).
Kuppe was very evasive when asked precise questions, and was not prepared to outline the course content or structure in any detail other than a three line teaser and a few charts (fast and choppy trend charts, and a couple of swing charts). He trotted out silly comments like “I use the triangle, circle and the square” which is just insulting. Many of the revisionists I asked about he either did not know, or knew very little about. His response was that he teaches “Glenn” school.
Needless to say, I was not impressed with what I saw. The whole thing was very short on actual information about the course, and most of this probably lasted around 15 -20 minutes in total spread out through the 2 hour period. While Kuppe named dropped a lot, from what I saw, he was very light on for substance.
He even claimed after the lecture to be better than Bill McLaren. Well that did it for me, I saw no evidence of anything approaching the rigour or capability of McLaren at all, and to make such a sweeping claim when Kuppe clearly had glaring deficiencies from my perspective cemented my view that he was not anywhere near that class.
Regards
Magdoran
See: http://adest.com.au/seminars/free-gann-trading-lecture.htm
Interestingly Glenn Kuppe is currently listed as being the “Chief Operating Officer” of Peter G Moloney & Associates, a Futures Broking firm based in Melbourne, and is described as “…a Forex dealer for several international banks; thorough knowledge of currency futures and a regular seminar presenter on options and futures strategies”
http://www.pgm.net/about/contacts.htm
Like the adage out of “Forrest Gump” - You never know what you’re going to get, and the bizarre things that can be said in these promotional events never cease to amaze me. Well, this “Lecture” was no exception, read on…
So, what happened in the “Lecture”?:
The first half of the presentation was filled with all sorts of stories about the hardships of Kuppe’s parents, name dropping various Australian financial players, personal bragging such as an apocryphal story about making $2 Million for an unnamed bank or financial institution in a Forex arbitrage trade made in the 1980s, with his boss doing the reverse and losing $2 Million, and later sacking him in an internal political blame game to cover up his mistake.
When the actual technical component was finally presented much later, it looked like a very simplistic use of a Bowden like swing chart style and a rudimentary and incomplete version of McLaren’s pattern of trends (touching on the concept of “spacing” and counting of counter trends). The idea being that there are “fast” trends and “choppy” trends - essentially McLaren’s concepts of “normal” trends and “creeping” trends (which Kuppe did acknowledge).
While he displayed an understanding of the importance of counter trends, he did not demonstrate an appreciation of how these factor in time cycles (although in a teaser I can see why one would not outline this, but the presenter could at least show an inkling of understanding this in order to establish credibility – I suspect the former – that he just didn’t understand this).
He also addressed in a very cursory fashion a version of time and price squaring along the lines of Bryce T Gilmour’s “Geometry of the Markets” (although when later asked specific questions didn’t know of Gilmour). This involved a vertical measure of the price range from a high to a low, and then used this price extended out in days to find a time increment. To me this did not inspire confidence since this method is highly problematic without a lot of knowledge supporting this technique.
It struck me as odd when someone is ostensibly offering a “Gann” course, that rather than trying to establish their capability as a Gann practitioner and clearly outline the contents of their course with sufficient detail in order to evaluate it, they focus the majority of the information “Lecture” on trying to appear to be a “good bloke”, and establish their credentials via an association with financial institutions in the past.
You would expect when attending public presentations on serious financial topics that a speaker would maintain a degree of decorum and project an image of competence, wouldn’t you? Half way through this disjointed and rambling “lecture” Kuppe threw in the most amazingly crass “joke” about how trading the market was like “seducing a virgin” – not surprisingly, this little anecdote fell completely flat, and probably lost half the room (I noticed the women in the audience understandably squirming uncomfortably in their seats – not to mention some of the men too).
What I was expecting was a succinct outline of the course content, clear examples of the core course work, and a focus on which exact areas of Gann the presenter was drawing from, within a context of the different “schools” of interpretation. This is because the body of Gann’s works can be divided into specific techniques and approaches; hence I wanted to know if the focus was on “geometric styles” or “astrological styles”, or both.
If the content was on geometric styles, I wanted to know in detail which precise areas were going to be covered. Since there was a mention of price and time squared, and a mention of time cycles, this was just too broad a comment without qualification, especially if you have to blindly outlay almost $2000 in order to find out which particular approach and interpretation the “lecturer” would be presenting.
My assumption being that any “Geometric Gann” presenter should be across a range of different geometric interpretations such as Bill McLaren, Bryce T Gilmore, Brad Cowan, and perhaps David Bowden (at least an idea of what his core approaches are – but understandable if one was reluctant to upfront thousands of dollars for each tiny morsel on techniques).
Kuppe was very evasive when asked precise questions, and was not prepared to outline the course content or structure in any detail other than a three line teaser and a few charts (fast and choppy trend charts, and a couple of swing charts). He trotted out silly comments like “I use the triangle, circle and the square” which is just insulting. Many of the revisionists I asked about he either did not know, or knew very little about. His response was that he teaches “Glenn” school.
Needless to say, I was not impressed with what I saw. The whole thing was very short on actual information about the course, and most of this probably lasted around 15 -20 minutes in total spread out through the 2 hour period. While Kuppe named dropped a lot, from what I saw, he was very light on for substance.
He even claimed after the lecture to be better than Bill McLaren. Well that did it for me, I saw no evidence of anything approaching the rigour or capability of McLaren at all, and to make such a sweeping claim when Kuppe clearly had glaring deficiencies from my perspective cemented my view that he was not anywhere near that class.
Regards
Magdoran
