The question gets dismissed too easily in both directions. One camp says every course seller is a fraud, because anyone who could really trade would just trade. The other camp says every course seller is a misunderstood educator, because teaching is its own honourable profession. Both answers are too clean. The truth is that honest sellers and dishonest sellers both exist, and the same surface — a polished landing page, a confident video, a price tag — can sit on top of very different realities underneath. Understanding the difference matters, because the wrong assumption costs you money in one direction and unfairly insults serious people in the other.
What follows is my best attempt to think through the possible reasons someone with real trading skill might decide to sell a course, and the reasons someone without that skill might decide to do the same thing. I am not the right person to do this with authority. I am, perhaps, the right kind of person to do it without an axe to grind — I am not a trader, I am not a course seller, and I have no stake in which side of this comes out looking better.
1The Honest Reasons People Don’t Talk About Enough
Trading income and teaching income are economically different
Trading income is volatile, capital-intensive, and exposed to drawdowns that have nothing to do with how good the trader is. You can have a perfectly executed year and still finish flat because the regime your edge depends on didn’t show up. Teaching income, by contrast, is recurring, scalable, and has almost zero marginal cost once the material exists. A trader making real money can still rationally want a second revenue line that does not move with the market.
This is not unique to trading. Surgeons publish textbooks. Chefs open cooking schools. Engineers write technical books on the side. Nobody assumes a surgeon writes a textbook because they cannot operate. The presumption only kicks in for traders, and that presumption is worth examining rather than taken for granted.
Some strategies do not scale
This is, in my view, the most credible honest case for selling a course — and it is also the case the loudest sellers almost never make. A trader running a method that works on small size in illiquid instruments cannot simply ten-x their capital and keep the same returns. Past a certain point, they are eating their own edge through slippage. For that kind of trader, teaching can genuinely be the most efficient way to convert skill into income that the market itself will not pay them.
The reason this case is rarely made openly is that admitting your strategy doesn’t scale is bad marketing. It is much easier to imply that the method works at any size and that the buyer is about to become rich than to honestly say the strategy works because it stays small.
Teaching as a top-of-funnel for something else
Plenty of legitimate operators run courses not because the course is the business, but because the course is how they find people for the actual business: a managed fund, a signals service, a prop firm pipeline, a software product. The course is a filter. The people who finish it and engage seriously are the ones invited to the next thing. Whether this is honest depends entirely on whether the “next thing” is itself honest. The course alone tells you very little.
Some people simply like teaching
This one is unfashionable to say, but it is true. There are profitable practitioners in every field who enjoy explaining what they do, who get something out of seeing a concept land in someone else’s head. Not everything is a financial calculation. People write blogs that nobody pays for. People answer questions on forums for free. A paid course is the same impulse with a price tag attached, and the price tag is not, by itself, evidence of bad faith.
The honest case in one sentence: A profitable trader can sell a course for a smoother income stream, because their strategy doesn’t scale, as a funnel into a real business, or because they genuinely like teaching — all of these are real and defensible.
The catch: These reasons describe a small fraction of what is actually being sold to retail audiences on the internet. The dominant economics of the industry are different, and worth understanding on their own terms.
2The Dishonest Reasons, Which Are the Majority
All of the above is real, and worth saying out loud before getting to the uncomfortable part. The uncomfortable part is that the honest reasons account for a small fraction of what is actually being sold to retail. Most trading courses aimed at retail audiences are not made by profitable traders. The course is the business. The trading is the marketing for the course. This is the centre of the industry, and pretending otherwise does no one any favours.
The economics of selling beat the economics of trading
Consider the arithmetic. A course at five hundred euros sold to a thousand people is half a million euros with no market risk, no drawdown, no margin call, no execution skill required. To make the same money trading, you need real capital, a real edge, and the discipline to not blow it up. One of those paths is much, much easier than the other, and human beings tend to drift toward the easier path while telling themselves a story about why it was the right one all along.
This is not a moral failing unique to traders. It is the same gravitational pull that produces every industry of professional explainers around hard activities. The activity is hard. Explaining the activity is easier. The market for explanations is larger than the market for results. Money flows accordingly.
A genuine edge gets smaller as you teach it
This is the structural argument, and the one I find hardest to get past. If someone has a real, exploitable inefficiency in the market, every additional participant they teach to exploit it makes the inefficiency smaller. Edges are not infinitely shareable. They get crowded, they get arbitraged, they fade.
Anyone who has actually found something that works has a strong incentive to keep quiet about it, or to share it only with a tiny circle of people whose capital does not threaten the trade. The loud, public, enthusiastic seller of “my method” is, by the structure of the situation, doing something a rational holder of a real edge would not do. That does not prove the method is fake. It does mean the burden of proof is on the seller, not the skeptic.
Lifestyle marketing as a tell
There is a specific aesthetic the dishonest end of the industry has converged on: rented cars, hotel balconies, watches, sunsets, the laptop on a beach. None of that is evidence of trading skill. All of it is evidence that someone has studied which images make a stranger on the internet want to be them. When the marketing is about the life, not the work, the product being sold is usually the marketing itself.
Testimonials are not track records
A wall of screenshots of winning trades is not a track record. A row of smiling student photos is not a track record. A YouTube video showing one good month is not a track record. A real track record is a long, audited, uninterrupted series of results — including the bad periods — and almost no retail-facing course seller will produce one when asked. The absence of that single document tells you more than any marketing page can.
What the marketing implies: This person has cracked the markets, and for a small fee they will share the method with you.
What the structure of the situation suggests: The economics of selling courses are vastly better than the economics of trading, real edges shrink when shared, and the people who can verify their claims with audited histories almost never need to use lifestyle marketing to do it.
3How to Tell Which Kind You Are Looking At
Once you accept that both honest and dishonest sellers exist, the practical question is how to tell them apart from the outside. There is no perfect filter, but a few questions get you most of the way there. None of these alone is conclusive. Together they form a reasonable picture.
Is there a verifiable, long-term track record?
Not screenshots. Not one good year. A real, auditable history that includes the drawdowns. Honest practitioners either have one or admit they don’t. Dishonest ones produce smoke — testimonials, single-month returns, screenshots without context, claims that “the broker won’t let me share full statements,” appeals to mystery. The mystery is the answer.
Does the seller still trade meaningfully, or do they live off course income?
Both can be true at once, but the ratio matters. If course income is ninety-nine percent of the business, you are buying from a course business, whatever it calls itself. This is not, by itself, a sin — some people genuinely retired from trading and now teach — but it changes what you are buying. You are buying an educational product, not a peek behind the curtain of an active practice.
How do they talk about losses?
Real practitioners talk about drawdowns, uncertainty, regime change, and the periods when their method didn’t work. Sellers talk about winners. Listen for whether the seller has ever, in public, described a year where the method underperformed and explained what they learned from it. If they cannot, that is information.
What is the promise?
“You will learn a framework I have found useful” is a different sentence than “you will replace your income in six months.” The first might be honest. The second is, by the structure of the claim, not. No legitimate teacher in any difficult field promises a specific outcome in a specific timeframe, because real skills do not work that way.
Who is the marketing aimed at?
Material aimed at people who already know the field tends to be technical, careful, and unglamorous. Material aimed at people who don’t tends to be emotional, aspirational, and full of cars. The reliable signal is not what the seller claims about themselves — it is what kind of audience the marketing is trying to attract. Watch where the funnel is pointed, not where the seller is pointing.
4Why I Am Writing This as a Non-Professional
I want to be clear about my own position. I do not trade for a living. I build software for people who analyse football statistics and think carefully about probability. I am closer to the audience for this question than I am to the people who sell answers to it. That is the entire reason this article exists.
The people best placed to write honestly about this are often the ones least incentivised to. A professional fund manager has nothing to gain from a public essay about why most course sellers are not what they appear to be. A successful course seller obviously has everything to lose from the same essay. What is left is people like me — not experts, but also not selling anything in this space — trying to think through the question in plain language.
I might be wrong about parts of this. The honest reasons may be more common than I think. The dishonest ones may be even more dominant. But the structure of the argument seems hard to escape: in any field where the underlying activity is hard, risky, and rare, a parallel industry of people selling shortcuts to the activity will emerge, and that industry will be larger than the activity itself. That is true of trading. It is true of trading’s neighbours. It is worth keeping in mind whenever anyone, in any field, is selling you the answer to a problem they claim to have already solved for themselves.
Conclusion: The Shortest Version
A profitable trader can have honest reasons to teach: a smoother income stream, a strategy that doesn’t scale, a funnel into a real business, or the simple fact that some people enjoy explaining what they do. Those reasons exist and they are real. Anyone who dismisses every course seller as a fraud is being lazy.
But the dominant reason, across the retail-facing end of the industry, is simpler and less flattering. Selling courses is easier and more profitable than trading. A real edge shrinks when shared. Marketing converges on whatever images make strangers want to buy. The math of one path is overwhelmingly better than the math of the other, and most people who claim to be doing the harder one are quietly doing the easier one.
The default assumption for a stranger selling a trading course on the internet should be that they are in the course business, not the trading business, and that the burden of proof is on them to show otherwise. A verifiable track record will do it. Nothing else really will.
I am not a professional trader. I cannot tell you whether the next course you see advertised is the one rare exception or the thousandth example of the rule. What I can say is that the question “why is this person selling a course instead of trading?” is a reasonable one to keep asking, and that asking it in good faith — without either the cynical reflex or the trusting one — is the closest thing to a defence the audience has.
Comments