Yes, it really sux. I only made 7% last week becaue i exited webx and mrvl one day earlier than their optimal exit. If i had held webx and mrvl for one extra day, it would have brought my profit from 7% too 13% last week. I learned from what i did wrong in my stops. Either way, you are right, jack's teaching talents only allowed me too get 7% last week as i f-ed up. THAT DOES SAY A LOT ABOUT HIS TEACHINGS. Thanks for clearing that up for us electron
Congratulations nwb' on your successful month. I know I speak for many of us who like reading about success stories in this biz regardless of the method used. I know you followed very closely what Jack was trying to teach on ET before, so I believe your profit report. Since you say Jack has posted his methods multiple times, they are therefore no secret. As such, would you mind posting the method(s)? Again, congratulations on a great month, and continued good trading to you.
Thanks inanlong for the kind words. I will try too summarize the process as i understand it. Also, When i siad 7% in my previous post, i was referring too last week and not last month. Just wanted too make sure we are clear that i am averaging 7% per week. This is only one third as good as jack said was possible. I think jack said it was poosible too aim for 20% per week. The process is long winded but fairly straightfoward. Each week we filter for stocks that have requirements. The filter starts as a fundamental analysius filter. We go too stocktables.com and fitler for stocks with EPS and RS above 80% in both. We then filter out stocks with prices below 10$ and above 50$. This should give a list of about 100 stocks. You should sort the 100 on the bases of %volume. You want too then go too the bottom of the list. This gives you stocks that have done very little volume compared too their usual volume. we are looking for these stocks in dry up or very dry up that are ready too pop when the volume pushes it. These stocks at the bottom of the list in du should be monitored througout the week for volume. When you have that du volume reached by 11:00, buy the stock. This is just a quick overview of what this method entails. There is a lot more posted at msn. its more of a process than a method. In my above post when i mentioned that i f-ed up with my exits, i was referring too the process of learning too lossen my stops at certain times. jc
nwbprop, Thanks for the reply. I really appreciate it. I read grob's post on the Short Term Trading thread he started that provides stocks on his hot list. I also went to the archives and found a link by spydertrader that is very good for a clearer discussion too. Having read through some of that stuff, and having looked at the charts of the stocks Jack posted, your description of the method really helps connect some dots. I also looked at the stocks you said you bought last week. This helped also, and I appreciate your willingness to share your work. gms also summarized jack's work and it too is found in the archives. It is very consistent with what you posted. Thanks again for your help and generosity. If you can supply more specifics, I am sure the ET community would be interested. After all, 7% a week is not too shabby.
electron, dbphoenix and inandlong, and everyone else, my thoughts: "exits are a work in progress" means that nwb is working on it, doesn't it? You know, simply because a method is being taught, and being taught in progressive realtime at that, does not mean that everyone is up to speed at the same moment with material, nor that everyone is as skillful as the next at that same moment in time. It certainly doesn't mean that the method is incomplete, nor that it's all been taught within a few weeks. You gotta know that one size does not fit all. Like a classroom where the teacher instructs but also needs to focus on individuals, and does so progressively day by day, so is Jack's method of teaching, as I see it spelled out progressively in his posts to one and the other. Funny, so many posts in this forum about how you can't become a trader in a short period of time usually have this analogy to make their point: "Can't teach someone to be a doctor in one day, how do you expect to learn to be a trader in one day? It's taken me years." You've come across those, right? Yet here in the above referenced post we read that there coexists a duplicitous criteria that trading - if the teacher doesn't teach it in a short period of time - or if the student doesn't grasp it in a short time - is not a "complete" method. Come again, how long does it take to teach someone to be a doctor? Are we to toss out medical courses if the students aren't doctors after a few weeks because the material must be incomplete or the instructors incompetent in teaching skills? If a trading education cannot be conveyed in a short time, or if a student's individual capabilities require time to grasp, absorb and master the material thus requiring a longer educational term, how does that in any stretch of reasoning necessarily reflect on whether the material being taught in a relatively short time is "complete" or not? Otherwise, if we hold up the mirror to ET or any other trading forum, we need to wonder why it is that there are significant numbers of long time posters still asking questions and seeking/exploring concepts/ideas/methods/strategies et al regarding other poster's methods or that of the trading industry's many acclaimed "gurus". These are questions and posts that go way beyond a few weeks. What is it? Are they still looking for ways to improve? Yes. Are they looking for ways to be consistently profitable? Of course. But why - after so many posts and threads, day after day, month after month, year after year, from others and gurus???? Gee whiz shouldn't they already have gotten to that point in their abilities? This is in essence the same critique assessed on grob/hershey/bubba. After thought about the matter, I have concluded that the "give-it-to-me-in-one-page-otherwise-it's-not-a-system" criteria is sheer nonsense when one considers that virtually every trading book ever published needs more than a page to discuss and explain it's strategies, in fact, it takes up the whole book - plus more books. And did you stop reading/learning about trading your preferred strategies after reading your first page of your first book, or even after reading the whole book, or did you find yourselves reading yet even more books after that first book? If you've ever read more than one page about anything relative to your system/method/strategies, or ever wrote more than one post/page explaining something to someone, then you're among the last persons to insist that a system's every iota must be explainable in just one page, in my opinion. The validity of a trading system is not a question equating the term of educational process. You've taken judging a book by its cover and advanced it into judging a book by how many pages it contains. How lilliputian. I've never attended a class in my life where an entire complete course is taught on one page. Or in one book. Or in one day. I can just imagine the questions and criticisms that would arise out of a one page method. "But you didn't cover what happens when this or that...", "but it doesn't say what should I do whenever this or that...", "it didn't cover what should I be looking for when...", "you left out what should be my consideration of..." and so on, ad nauseam. Then what, flip-flop and critique the teacher because the educational process is too short? But at least then you have a better valid basis for judging that the education was incomplete. Fitting it all on one page is rather immaterial to what really matters. Nwb posted what really matters vis a vis his return, giving credit to grob109. Inandlong admirably steps up and recognizes the feat by congratulating him. Others may not have had an opportunity to publicly state so, but what do I read but a post that dismisses the fact that while nwb admits his exits need working on, he nonetheless accomplished a pretty neat return despite that "handicap", and simultaneously disregards the portent of future returns coming from nwb's learning from Jack, harping instead on an inference he deduces from nwb's "work in progress" statement about his weak point and from that, as i wrote above, makes this 2+2=5 connection about Jack. Give me a break. Well, everyone's given the privilege to say pretty much what they want to express, but here's what I would've said to nwb instead: "Nwb, a method that derives a 24% monthly return is a valid method in my book, and your 7% return in a week is even better. Um, where can I sit in and observe the class?"
What were you doing stop-wise that was not working as well, and what or how did you change that for the better?
You're missing out on a considerable amount of backstory here. The part of Jack's "method" which nwb explains represents only a tiny part of the hundreds and hundreds of pages of babble which Jack posted over multiple threads. While Jack made extraordinary claims for "his" method (which turns out to be only a variation of what Ian Woodward and Wm O'Neil have been teaching for years), he never was able to explain just exactly what his method was in a manner that was easily understood. Is this ease of understanding a requirement? Of course not. But when someone drifts from thread to thread, telling everyone with whom he comes in contact that they are amateurs, don't know what they're doing, are charlatans, have no idea how markets work, etc., usually with a variety of four+-letter words thrown in, all the while being unable to provide a clear explanation of what he considers to be the one true way (which one could be forgiven for expecting him to be able to do after 40 years), much less provide examples, much less point to even one person who is making money off the method, then one could perhaps be forgiven for believing that Jack was/is most likely blowing smoke up everybody's skirt. If what nwb has explained is the core of Jack's equity approach, then it is in fact a viable strategy for trading equities. It has been such for many years. Based on what nwb has written, however, it's hardly Jack's. In fact, I see nothing original in it at all. If Jack has developed a superior methodology rather than simply borrowed it from others, I have yet to see it. As for teaching someone to be a trader in a day, or even an afternoon, I can see that, if by that one means that the student is expected to learn a particular methodology. Learning the methodology is not the problem. LBR's "Holy Grail", for example, can be learned in an hour or less. The problem comes with all the emotional components (which are also what prevent all those you mention here at ET from being able, after months or years, to achieve the success they desire). And if one is instead teaching students about "trading" with the intent of enabling them to develop methodologies of their own, then the process will take far longer. This is not, however, what Jack is doing. Jack was banned not because he couldn't explain his methods in a way that was generally understandable but because of his behavior and his treatment of other members and of moderators. Even Mr. Market was more forthcoming and behaved better. If he hasn't figured any of that out by now, he will most likely be banned again. If he has instead decided to contribute something, I'll be interested to see if he can come up with anything original.
GMS-- Thanks for your thoughtful post. --------- FWIW, I finally stopped losing money trading ES when I started listening to grob. I'm still doing the 'beginners rockets' thing-- tough market for these right now, but my equity curve is creeping back upwards nevertheless. Most importantly, a lot of the _fear_ that I had while trading is gone. For me, it was finally grasping a visceral understanding of the relationship between price and volume that made the difference. Grob's educational process took me right to that understanding, once I sat down and applied myself to learning it. This is a new place for me, and I'm having more fun with trading than I thought possible. 'Getting paid to learn' is no joke. I have a hard time understanding the venom directed at him. He's offering his experience and understanding of the markets for free. Nobody here on ET, or elsewhere has an obligation to read what he writes. He's not trying to sell anything, so what's the problem? The only answer to that question, has been, "His methods dangerous to Newbies!!" I just don't see it. It's improved my trading dramatically-- and noone in our daily chats is losing their shirt. Although the specifics always change, most of the reactions seem to be centered on the alleged incomprehensibility of his posts. IMHO, the gigantic signal-to-noise ratio of his writing is a giant relief from the normal claptrap. It is several std deviations away from mean content on ET. Frankly, what he writes is not nearly as complicated as Descartes or Sartre, or heaven forbid Marx or Derrida. If you can't read it, fine-- if you can't understand the simpler explanation that he willingly provides, fine-- If you're not willing to politely ask for clarification of his non-standard vocabulary, fine. But some things cannot be reduced beyond a certain point. Either you commit enough effort to get the 'aha!' moment, or you don't. But the writer is under no obligation to make it easy for you-- just as you are under no obligation to read it. ET would be a kinder, gentler place if we'd all use our ignore buttons instead of lobbing ad hominem attacks ad nauseam. Just my $0.02. Best Regards, Laz
I had exited webx and mrvl too early. On the third day when the stocks were suppost too pop, i had exited becasue there was a small sell off in them. I thught the small sell off was the start of there downtrend so i exited for a 7 % gain. the minor sell off was still part of the stock making its pt 3. both stocks did not go lower than that half hour selloff and then continued up for another 7% throughout the day. i am gonna oinly exit when it looks like we are going too get consecutive 30 minute sell offs with increasing volume. Ohterwise, i will consider it still making a pt 3.
..independent of the immensely entertaining furor over Grob109 (which seems to intensify outside of RMH), I would like to take issue with your position that a trading approach can't be put on one page for all to see. The simple-minded but profitable mechanical system strategies I develop have on the order of seven rules. The typical trade code is maybe 70 instructions long. Now no doubt what Grob109 does is much more more subtle than that, but I'll bet it ain't so much so that a flow chart for it in 8 point font would take more than a page. I would be very much interested in your contrary views. Best regards. - Mike