Day 3 Homework

Headline

Day 3 content landed well (96–98% correctly recalled core concepts like the watchlist and "SAM" scanner), but a majority of completers (55.1%, 87/158) rated the strategy's underlying math — 500 trades at a 1-2% average return — as "Weak," and over half (56.5%, 87/154) skipped the free HTFL trade recommendation. Appetite for continuing is high: 95.6% (151/158) plan to attend Day 4.

What the numbers say

• Comprehension of core lessons was very strong: 96.8% (153/158) correctly identified "create a watchlist" as Nate's first step, and 98.1% (155/158) correctly named the scanner "SAM."
• Risk-management rules were well retained: 91.8% (145/158) said to take profits "at our predetermined levels per our trade plan," and 86.1% (136/158) said to take losses per rules "set for myself, before the trade."
• Despite strong recall, 55.1% (87/158) rated the cumulative performance of 500 trades at a 1-2% average return as "Weak," versus 22.8% (36/158) "Strong" and 22.2% (35/158) "Meh... okay" — worth flagging as either genuine skepticism or question confusion (see Caveats).
• Only 43.5% (67/154) took Nate's free HTFL trade recommendation the prior day; 56.5% (87/154) did not.
• Membership is high among completers: 79.1% (125/158) are current Profit Surge Trader members.
• Among members, interest in two weekly Profit Surge sessions is very high: 88.8% (111/125).
• Among non-members, interest in trading alongside Nate weekly is also high: 69.7% (23/33).
• Independent trading behavior is split: 44% (55/125) of members look for their own setups, while 52.8% (66/125) rely only on Nate's trades.
• Intent to return for Day 4 is strong: 95.6% (151/158).

In their own words

• Overwhelm/beginner gap: "So far, I am mistified. Most everything is over my head. Is there a book or programed learning available? Want to do this technique but am starting at a VERY elementry level."
• Pacing complaint: "Not really sure, aha moment. I am having little difficulty following while Nate talks, at moments, it seems too fast."
• Access/technical friction: "Cannot find videos from Monday and Tuesday. Misse Monday and first part of Tuesday. Y'll say go review but cannot review what ia not available. Too much stuff is hidden!"
• Login/account problem flagged with contact info: "Ehen I was not recognized by your system and I could-not log in even after Updating and changing my password, snd getting no answer when I called in. Irwin Carasso, Icarasso at gmail.com... (805) 698-8451"
• Recurring confusion point (strike price): "I still don't understand how to pick the strike price, which then determins the option price"

What to do about it

• Investigate the 55.1% "Weak" rating on the cumulative-performance question directly with a handful of respondents or a follow-up poll — this sits awkwardly next to near-universal recall of the lesson content and could signal either skepticism worth addressing in copy/sales material, or a confusingly worded question.
• Follow up on the 56.5% (87/154) who skipped the free HTFL trade — a short poll asking why (missed the alert, unclear entry, risk concerns) would clarify whether this is an execution/access problem or a conviction problem.
• Fix the reported login/account provisioning issue for promo sign-ups (named respondent Irwin Carasso gave contact info) — this is an actionable support ticket, not just feedback.
• Address the recurring "strike price selection" confusion with a short, dedicated explainer (multiple verbatims cite this as the sticking point), since it appears across several "AHA moment" and "questions for Nate" answers.
• Fix video/replay access gaps for Monday/Tuesday sessions — at least one respondent reported being told to "go review" content that wasn't available.
• Given 88.8% (111/125) member interest in two weekly sessions, this looks like a low-risk, high-demand offer to pilot.

Caveats

• Completion rate was 60.3% (158 of 262 started) — nearly 4 in 10 who started did not finish; results reflect only the more engaged/invested respondents who completed.
• Several questions were only shown to subsets (e.g., "interested in trading alongside Nate weekly" had 125 skips, shown only to the 33 non-members; "two weekly sessions" had 33 skips, shown only to the 125 members) — these percentages are not comparable to full-sample questions.
• The "cumulative performance" question's three-way split (Strong/Meh/Weak) without a defined benchmark may itself be ambiguous — respondents may be answering different implicit questions (e.g., comparing to buy-and-hold vs. to effort required).
• Long-text responses show recurring self-reports of missed sessions, audio/pacing complaints, and platform (TradingView) confusion — these reduce confidence that quiz-style comprehension questions fully reflect understanding across all respondents.