Hi easy, not f(t); manipulate the expression so that t is solved by extrapolating from a fitted range of the pre-scaled derivative(s). hth, ktm'r
Most of the Jackean pronouncements make as much sense as "The slithy toves did gyre and gimbal on the wave." For those of you who remember your doggerel poetry.
Oh, Mex, are you a girl? In fact, I don't care! I get it off on literacy! My fat girlfriend, much as I adore her abilility to infinitely orgase, would not have recognized the reference! Nor would Jack, the literal prick! But Wolfie would! I am so excited, I may trade tomorrow! I sang arias from "The Phantom of the Opera" to my soon to be ex wife tonight. She was not impressed. Is trading like marriage? Do you need a new system every seven years?
It is quite a task to go through Jacks posts and extract what is important from them and I can understand why so many people get turned off but what he says re his trading method is actually very consistent and has remained consistent for several years now. It has been a hobby of mine to edit this stuff and I now have a pretty comprehensive framework and nothing has changed since he started posting here including his way of wandering all over the map with endless side trips..
Yes, I agree. But I have consistently been an asshole for several years here. Consistency aside, the question is, are you making any MONEY? And BTW, Jack DOES evolve. Albeit slowly. As befits his age. It is like watching a snail go down your driveway.
Interesting easyrider. You certainly could say that he has been "consistent" in a certain way: Jack's. (i) The real point is though whether you could distill a 'trading method' out of all this? Apparently you did; (ii) Given this 'tradable Jack method', have you easyrider be able to make money with it? As I know you as a serious trader, could you get this up to a point were you could objectively backtest it for soundness? Be good, nononsense
I said nothing about trading his method. I said that he has been consistent in stating his method, meaning that he doesnt say one thing today and another tommorrow. He has defined the method completely and it is there for anyone who wants to do the work to dig it out. I am still a beginner. I have been trading rockets with some success for awhile now even though they did not backtest well during the Stochastics thread. You cannot enter every time the Sto crosses 20/80 or you will get killed but you can learn which ones work by observation. Good rockets almost always coincide with an obvious standard chart formation. I had not been able to progress beyond that point until recently when I acquired Buttontrader. I am old and prone to execution errors so I had to stay away from riskier entries but I can now get in and out extremely fast and my trading has taken a quantum leap forward. I am now working on icebergs with mixed results but am confident I will get the hang of it before long. I know nothing about backtesting so I do not know whether any of it is backtestable or not.
Should "The King of Context" be recieved literally, or interpreted? I think this should be thought about very carefully. Imho. hth.
Yes I agree. And its true his method is still evolving but the additions are refinements, not changes to the underlying structure. I dont know why I feel compelled to defend him. I guess its for the same reason you feel compelled to needle him. I imagine hes probably laughing at both of us. Happy Holidays.