Thanks for the additional comment just above. We both recognized the same things in the initial post. You chose to post a series of "don't fall down on the ices" in correspondence to the original post. I easily recognize all of the above. His post lacks truths and doesn't post truths. You post comments in a manner (negatives in statements that the mind processes as statements that omit the negative). Thus your post is one as I first charactrized it and that you "got" and repeated back to me as I anticipated. You now understand what I said and why the combination of the two posts is way off the mark each for their separate faults. Personally, I love to be in the same room as others who are trading. My preferred setting is to be exchanging with others on what is coming up in the next five to fifteen minutes and how we are going to handle it using the accounts that are running side by side. Watching executions standing behind some individual is kind of droll.
1. I believe that statements made in the negative are prosessed as different (opposite, positive) statements. When you do this, anyone wanting to learn from you has to reprocess what you say into a new set of statements to get to be able to process the true of what you say. 2. I like challenges. Give me the list and I'll let you know. 3. The ice is on a sidewalk. Falling down is what is to be avoided. the thickness of the ice can be in any range possible so the entire range of thickness goes away as a consideration. Did you see it go away? I was talking about the substantive content of the posts and not the persons posting, primarily. Obviously words read have some degree of contagion. 4. Your languaging level of communication. Yes, and I am not in a position to critque you specifically. By you comments though, you are not able to process knowledge well and that may affect your experiences and that may affect your skill base. We will find out as you reveal yourself.
I am curious.... if there anyone who is capable of understanding one single thing that this "Grob" guy says... and further has any insight into whether he actually trades in the markets... and how he does in that regard!? His writings on ET under his present and prior pseudonym are what one might likely expect to read from some demented/institutionalized individual who has had a break with reality. :eek: But if there are others who can discern what this guy is stating via his indecipherable code, please do us all a favor and tell us what the F it is, and why he is incapable of saying it in clear and precise prose. It's my view that if he really knew what the F he meant he would therefor be able to express it in a clear and simple way! Like I've said before I think this guy is playing games. Ice
Your reply is also as I expected. I often see in your posts in other threads that you like to use words to go in circles but never actually get to the point. It is all great in an academic environment where we can talk in circles and write dissertations and have them reviewed by peers and go in circles and be content with the big vocabulary that we have used in doing this mental masturbation. However, this is my first direct communication with you and it is evident to me that you really just want to talk and not really share anything. I've seen traders on many levels and the ones that are good mentors and have been successful don't quite offer this kind of discourse. They just tell you what they have learned, what to focus your energy on and what to avoid. They do it without going in circles. I'm sure what you offer is highly intellectual and is a great conversation piece, but your posts, Grob, have offered nothing to this particular thread. I recognize that you might misinterpret what I wrote as a reply initially as a rush to defend myself. I often come off wrong in these threads because flaming and word-wars are expected here. So I decided to really see what you have to offer by sending the second post where I ask you to rephrase. Again, you reply with another "conundrum" wrapped in a riddle wrapped in a burrito. (as someone else mentioned in an unrelated thread) I suggest to Arzoo to reread my post and try to extract from it what rings true in his mind. This is how I evaluate things. I look for what rings to my heart as truth. If you have worked to acquire the skills to be consistent, then it is time to evaluate your overall plan so you can take it to the next level. Anyway, my offer to help out and to write without riddles still stands. Others might find a lot of usefulness in what Grob is offering. I can see that his method is not something that would work for me at this stage. Best wishes to all. Grob, I appreciate the time you took to reply nonetheless. No offense intended, I'm just providing my honest point of view as I always do in my posts.
fwiw: at the end of the day, its all about making money, not playing word games. peace and good fortune go to those who have cool karma and share their knowledge and experience freely. especially when nothing is expected in return. we are all able to decipher what information is useful to us and what is not. if we are not at this level, then any information is unlikely to be useful until we get a bloody nose or two.
What is truth? This topic is very important for making money. Only the "truth" works for this enterprise. I learned about this in an unconventional manner. My dad was self taught and ran the reliability operations of BTL which had perview over ATT at he time. with about 300 PhD's working for him, he had the challenge of keeping current and having a strong academic scientific background. For most of my family life at that time, I was subject to "Knowing how to KNOW. Today, my collegual relationships in appropriate fields, affords me an "operational" understanding of knowing how to know as it relates to truth. Fortunately, assembling the knowledge, experience and skills associated with makng money usually starts with nothing and also one's prior life experience. What truth comes down to, is therefore, a narrower consideration than dealing with the more difficult aspects of life. Making money is not complex nor difficult. The best way to go about it is to only acquire truths and to also shed anything which comes into consciousness as a consequence of "growing" along in the acquisition of knowledge, experience and skills. So daily, consciously, you "test" for truths and unconsciously eveningly, your mind is reorganized and as you awaken, you are given the results as newly conscious stuff to be tested for truth. It is an iterative refinement process. Testing is the punch line. Thank God you are equipped for this since the beginning of your life. The testing is done on a variety of levels. In ET it gets pretty viseral because of the marginal consciousness that is exhibited. A fight or flee test prevails regarding truths. The reptilean testing level. The attached dichotomous key shows you various levels of testing required as you go through the process and always be able to continue. Here is an example. I am running 11 accounts where I have just netted 17 points on 100,000 shares. Q5 of Stage I compounding and Q 1 of stage II. (the blue line). The "truth" I get to look at is the 100,000 share limit for a money stream. How do I retest my 100,000 shares limit per stock (think a price of 30 bucks a share) as a truth of my system and of trading in markets? I debrief and find that two things occurred; I traded behind the cummulative limit (10% of all shares traded as day proceeded) I left 200,000 on the table because of imprecision in executing. Two sub truths came up for me: cummulative limit and execution modus. These bring up other sub truths ad nauseum. Three of these accounts are for handicapped adults trust accounts so I want to do well in having the truth in position trading (6 to 8 day cycle of profits per cycle) The point of truths is that they are there and they "fit" with other truths and they stand alone as truths as well. The human loop that is built into all of us takes care of all testing of truths. We do conscious things in several sectors. for making money they are knowledge, experience and skills. The reading of knowledge is a "pondering" testing process. Pondering is the comparison of what is the "best use of knowledge" in order to "protect your interests" ----a smiggion of reptileans even. Experience is a truth tester that merges the sensory and our emotions. You are using a lot of Jimminy Cricket here; the test is one where measures are against the yardstick of your conscience. ("with science"). Right and wrongness. Skills truth testing is an applied truth testing. Again its basis shapes up as does knowledge in two parts: daily consciousness testing and eveningly as the subconcious organizing and streamiling the storage system of your mind. It is a paralleling of truths. It it the building of a reinforced, available, usuable set of information that works in a timely manner to achieve results. Some people do not know anything about how they "work". Both of your posts amplily demonstrate this. Then your questions repeat the demonstration. So you, in fact for yourself, don't know where you are nor what is at hand for you to be doing to get way from where you are. that is not unusual. most people go through their entire lives this way. And, mostly, they reinforce the status that they have attained as the good enough place in their world. So is there something to be said for getting the truths down. Yes. There is a big difference between 800 bucks and 17 points on 100,000 shares. More truth is involved, that is for sure.
I think you are unable to understand what he says because simply you have have had different experiences then him. Is that hard to understand? I would suggest looking at Spydertraders journal(journal section). He sais his system is derived from Grob109s writings and he made > 70% of his initial stake his first year. He posts all his trades freely to anyone who is interested in digging up info to see. He also readily answers any Qs you may have. This might get you up to speed in terms of some experiences that may be congruent with Grob109s. Since we are talking about truths and experience, I think it is very interesting to read William J Oniels and Paul Ryans interview in Market Wizards. All they due is spout their truisms throughout their interviews. They also seem to be congruent with what Grob109 sais and with what I have found. Try giving it another read if you have the book. It might help. I have my own trusim based on experience. Ill give a little but given you do not have the same experiences that I have, you will probably not understand. -Get a list of stocks that perform in cycles relentlessly. -Find stocks in a long trend and buy at the right time in the cycle(not at tops and not at bottoms) Determine where the end of one 1/2 cycle ends and another begins(look at AMT for more help). An IT trend can have multiple profitable 1/2 cycles long. -Make sure volume confirms the cycle -Use the faster timeframe to draw channels and monitor the sequence of events that always unfold. -take appropriate action depending on the unfolding sequences of volume, price, and indicators. I have had very good success so far using equities. On Par with Spydertrader. I worked very hard in my past in the ES with Grob109 and was not successful at all. I lost a lot of money which I have made back in equities. From someone who has tried both ES and Equities and has followed and tried my hardest to learn from Grob109, I was unsuccessful at ES and succesful in Equities. Grob109 is the real deal. The real question is can we itereratively refine to the point where we have the same experiences as Grob109. Thats up to you.
I think the direction this thread is going is the manner in which we deal with apparent trading issues. Examples commensurate with my pre-amphibious intellect would be: 1) Telling a trader who has recurring "blow-up" days to limit his daily losses to X%. 2) Telling an impatient trader to allow himself only X executions per day. 3) Telling an unprofitable trader to "stop making losing trades". The first two don't go to the root of the issue and are just band-aids on gunshot wounds; the third is perhaps equally unavailing but at least gets right to the point. I know most of us learned what to do by first learning what not to do, but there's probably 1 positive (truth?) that correlates for every 10 "Dont's" in this business. Is this what people are talking about here? Just my guess.