Why doesn't this surprise me? http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2268575#post2268575
Wow. I'm surprised this thread hasn't been deleted yet. How long will it be before Dr. Neo realises he's been had? Why did he choose to follow the only trading guru on the planet who doesn't have a track record of making any money at all, doesn't even have his own website? Here's a little test for wannabe traders. If a dishevelled old man, who obviously can't even afford a haircut, sits next to you on the bus and starts talking gibberish and promising you untold wealth. Do you a) Get up and find another seat, b) Ignore him and hope he'll start bothering somebody else or c) Devote your life to following his investment advice?
Tums deleted the posts he made here yesterday... maybe he's starting to realize the error of his ways... nah! Hershey traders are a rare breed.
Jack... we know you and/or your minions are watching. Why don't you rescue your protege??? Speaking of proteges, nwbprop's thread was eventually deleted... will be interesting to see what happens here.
Moderation is to facilitate free speech and mutual space: You get to speak your mind, and others get to speak theirs... you in your own space, they in theirs, without interference or censorship. If you don't like the thread's chain of thought, go start your own thread. If you interfere, you forfeit your privilege to post.
Hey, Tums, a polite dis-scent here. WRT this pathetic thread, I wouldn't care how much it got flamed, I'd just put the assholes on ignore (although I have only done that twice in many years that I recall, I prefer to humiliate them with my superiority). And elsewhere I expect others to treat me the same, and they do. My issue with moderation "protecting" a thread is that it stifles even polite registration and discussion of differences of opinion. And I think that it is especially important for newbies to get a balanced perspective. For example, your rules would prevent someone from posting on this thread that I am a total fraud (in case that were not manifestly obvious). Some newbie might take me seriously and go off trying to codify SCT (GFL!). I think Jack et al. deserve the same treatment.
nah... i only "move" a post if someone complains. for your thread, if these monkeys don't post, there won't be any posts.
Ah, gotcha, thanks! Monkeys? You should PM with some of them. Very interesting people, for hysterical heretics. What I like about them is that they verifiably TRADE. Badly or well, I don't care. But the company of REAL traders is scarce around here.
I say it's impossible to codify or backtest SCT because SCT is a moving target that exists only in Jack's mind. If you test anything Hershey they'll add on new, additional conditions after-the-fact when what you tested fails. Like the "0 to 7 turn" of The "P,V relation." I tested it exactly as described in "Tomorow's Paper Today." Then had to modify exits to time exits because the original exit concept is broken. It was still not profitable, so Jack and his minions came out of the woodwork with all kinds of new conditions that were not in the original paper. This is how he does business and it stretches back to at least 1999 when he did it to a bunch of guys from Harvard for over a year. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2217190&#post2217190
Well then I'm just going to have to put you on ignore! Your triatribe reminds me of the endless discussions in Reiterative Refinement about how to crayola under conditions when there ARE no volume patterns, haha!