OK, the poll that I created last night was deleted this morning as someone complained that it was rude. So, I want to publicly apologize for being rude and this time around, I would like to keep it a bit more objective and more focused on Jack's methodologies (versus his personal trading acumen). I also apologize to those that already voted on my poll last night. Lastly, for those that may be wondering why in the world I'm creating this poll, I thought it appropriate to provide an explanation: I'm a consistently profitable automated day trader (have been for a few years now), but it's taken me many years to get to this point (more than I'd like to admit). I suppose if I wasn't doing it on a part-time basis, it either wouldn't have taken me as long, or I would have given up a lot earlier. However, as a profitable trader, I'm also always looking for ways to improve my profitability. This could mean polishing/tweaking/honing my current methodology (which I've done ad nauseam) or explore potentially new methodologies (which I'm doing now). So, given the fact that Jack's methodologies have received a lot of attention and Jack himself tends to be a lightning rod for debate, I thought that I'd poll the ET community to see what others thought. I'd really like to see a ton of votes, because if they all weigh on the positive side, then I'll perhaps consider his methodologies worth pursuing. But, if they weigh on the negative side, then I'll skip it and move on..... Also, if the votes are strongly positive, then I'd hope that students of Jack's methodologies can point to this poll (as a data point) and say: "see, these methodologies do have merit. That's why I'm devoting this period of time to study them and hopefully by doing so, I'll be a very successful trader". On the contrary, if the votes are strongly negative, opponents/detractors of his ideas could do the same. I'm not saying that a consensus opinion about a certain technique or methodology really means that the methodology holds water or not. All I'm saying is that I'm hoping this poll can provide a sound data-point for those considering Jack's proposed methodologies (including myself). Lastly, I'm hoping that future generations of traders (or wanna-be traders) can look to this poll and also gather some insight into whether or not Jack Hershey's methodologies warrant their full attention. Thanks, Jason
There's been a few polls about Jacks methods in the past and all have had the same result. However, those that are using the method as are mainly posting elsewhere with current details while occasionally posting at ET about other things not related. Yet, a few using concepts from the method blended in with other stuff do occasionally still post here. Here's by belief, if you need to create a poll, especially if the moderators thought the first one was rude, to determine if you should spend time learning something along with knowing what many already say about Jack...best to move along to something else you'll have more faith in. Last of all, you already have a profitable automated system. Don't you want to stick to something that's automated? Thus, is Jacks method automated because I was under the impression its a discretionary method that couldn't be coded? Edit - Another way to look at it...you have no sincere interest in learning Jack's method...why the pretend. P.S. I don't use the method...never have. Mark
Jason, I edited my message after you responded...sorry about that. Yeah, I heard the same thing and that they walked away not being able to automate it. Thus, the issue wasn't if it was profitable or not....they just couldn't automate it. Wasn't there a software program released by someone (not Jack)? Mark
Yeah...that's how all the other polls resulted (a few each year). Can't wait to see more Jack images to finalize the thread movement to chit chat. Mark
I don't think anybody saves any links to the Jack polls especially when they all resulted in mudslinging. Some deleted, others buried deep in chit chat. More importantly, Baron (ET owner) pruned (got rid of) a ton of old threads about 2 years ago and would only bring back something that was educational at request only. However, even if this thread stays clean without being dumped in chit chat...I still doubt someone will save a link to this thread when someone next year does a similar like poll. Simply, Jack has outlasted all of his haters considering he's still here posting away while most of those that went after him over the past years are no longer posting except for a few that have resurge lately. Regardless, if you really take a honest look with any method being discussed at any given public forum not dedicated to a specific method (e.g. elitetrader.com, t2w.com, traderslaboratory.com, babypips.com et cetera). Most traders aren't profitable while only a few (a few) say it works and amongst the few there's 2 - 3 traders that defends the method endlessly regardless how simple or complex the method is. So why is Jack methods getting more hate? I answered that in a Jack poll a few years ago. It's simple, he intrudes on threads, he hijack threads et cetera but not as bad in the past especially after he was allowed to returned after being banned. However, I remember Jack in the beginning and he was like any other trader here sharing his method. Unfortunately he made the mistake of attacking others that shared their methods and that made him a target to those and it just turned into a big mudslinging fest...many have not forgiven him considering most of them did not do the same in Jack's thread. Anybody notice that Jack rarely start threads of his own in comparison to the past many years ago...he knows what will happen even if he only talks about the weather. Thus, it's really not about Jack's method considering all methods being shared here at ET have just as few traders being profitable and none of them (the so called profitable few) have showed verifiable proof the methods work. It's sad because all that old history still hangs around like a bad odor and it prevents some of the old timers from going into any in-depth details about their methods other than a few trading tips. Old history...same result while many of the newcomers don't know what started all of this crap. P.S. Most that go after Jack have never tried his method. He's like an addiction for them...they can't get enough of him. Mark
The categories are in green below. For potential traders,one of the paths is research. For those who want to know the facts about a topic, they can explore it first hand by doing research if they wish. Another way of exploration is to do deductive or science based testing. Polls can be conducted to gain information. How that is done is now a science and works fairly well for scientific people. The census is an example. Most polls have as a base a stratified random sample. This is a solicitation requirement that is not an aspect of this poll. This poll will get the usual result: 4 out of five people will reject the approach. My comments below are just my views on how a methodology is related to each of the choices. Fantastic-Jack's methodologies warrant the full attention of all traders (both new and professionals). Proper study and application of his ideas can make a trader wildly profitable The methodology is being inquired about based on its profitability. The standard introduced is the pollâers concept of what profitability is. Among the posting respondents, it looks like their personal standard for the profitability of traders is low. Were they to compare records of learners of the method to theirs, then the learners of the method would be more profitable on the basis of this indirect proof. The people who posted do not know this. With respect to the method, I would recommend that only, among the posters, that Donna consider it. In general, no method is considered by any significant amount of traders. The diversity of traders precludes that any one specific method has any statistical significance. As a general rule, I would recommend that no potential trader approach any method as suggested (a degree of attention, study and application) because these three aspects are in the hands of the potential user. These three expressions of learning orientation and emphasis will not work for what is required with respect to the method. Good-Jack's methodologies are good and should be studied to enhance trader profitability. This possibility addresses using the methods or parts as an add on to other methods. Since there is nothing original or new in our approach, adding the ideas and concepts or practices to any other method can be done at the descretion of the potential adder onâer. Iteratively refining anything by adding elements that are compatible usually works well. Average-Jack's methodolgies are really no better or worse than any other methodology. Seeking an opinion for a comparison with other methods is a good idea and a better one is to compare a method to the market's offer. The standard I use is the ATR and measured on the fastest observable fractal. 6 times the ATR is a good ratio for what is observable as compared to a range that is measurable by a standard. This can be used for delving into the two above choices as well. [color=green Poor-Jack's methodologies are poor (or inferior) and really do not provide the means for a trader to become consistenly profitable.[/color] Here the subject is consistency of performance. In the prior choice, an alternative standard was suggested in my comment. Effectiveness and efficiency is the hallmark of the methodology. As a consequence, depending upon skill level of application of the method during the transition to expert, various multiples of the market's offer are realized. The tables related to this are published and available. Horrible-Jack's methodologies are potentially damaging and a waste of time and money to even consider pursuing. In this choice, the consideration has shifted to the mind. The mind IS the issue for the potential trader who may be embarking on the acquisition of knowledge and skills. The three generally used operations of the mind for successful living include: 1. Constructing the present (knowing what is going on and storing it temporarily. 2. Reconstructing the past (This is known as memory). and 3. Predicting the future (this is how a person believes what he believes about life.) With consideration to the above, damage is not caused by the method or its contents or operation. Damage is caused by the person who is doing the three things mentioned above. It is good for people to protect others from the subject of this poll. That is what they can decide to do anytime they wish. Summary. My research on how the method may be transferred is exhaustive. I have kept track of things for 53 years plus. Sophomorically, perhaps, I often classify people into pigeon holes where they fit, all according to my past experience with others. Science and deductive reasoning and critical thinking is not a large pigeon hole. Going through mentoring and doing all the drills is not most people's cup of tea. Not many people understand and profit from knowing how learning works. Fewer people still are able to converse about how the mind works and in particular how the mind-building process goes for achieving excellence. The above paragraph explains why people do not learn to trade from reading books. The punch line for understanding how any potential trader gets to expertise is the process whereby the method selects the trader. The method simply will not fit into most people's minds; there is no place for it. The places that exist in that person's mind will be filled with their different reconstruction of the past. If you have read this you know I didn't vote in either poll. The poll is senseless and just an expression of where the creator of the poll is in the infinite scheme of things. The method that any trader uses finds him. It works its way into his mind because there is a growing place for it. As it arrives and finally takes its seat, it has become his "inference" that joins with his sensing of his construction of the present: his perception. Then he creates memory as he works and sleeps; it is the reconstruction of the past. The poll creator made an expression that is dealing with his prediction of his future. The past threads did get up to 2,000,000 million hits a year for a period of over five years. This occurred as people constructed the present. Reading the threads does not construct the present. All these hits related to participation. They allowed those people to reconstruct the past (their memories). Their minds grew and became organized more or less. Now, as the present continues to be constructed by these people, they have "inference" (organized memories) that meld with all the moments of their sensing of the markets in the present. They know that they know and the order of events in market cycles is how they answer, in the MADA, the three questions for taking the market's offer as the offer is made. In ET there were many observers. There were also people who did the "process". The name of the process is differentiating the mind. NLP was used, as is well known. So now the discussions are the humor among members where the undifferentiated do their thing and the differentiated do their thing and never the twain shall meet. Recently you got to hear the Tzones whistling in the dark about dominant and non dominant. It was when the emotional differences between OODA and MADA were explained. One has fear, anxiety and anger the other has support, comfort and confidence. That is just the way it turns out as the consequence of how people decided things. They decide; they get the consequences. So the pollster has a mind and it is built the way he built it. It doesn't get erased. Taking the left fork yields the results of that path; taking the other fork results in knowing that you know how the markets work. Trading, can become for anyone, just like driving a car. Trading can become like you know how to trade because your mind has the inference always available so you know that you know. Learning to trade is a process of building the mind with respect to partnering with the market and operation of the market. The above is gibberish to a guy who wrote a book on trend following. Our method IS using trends to trade (this is NOT trend following).
Let me be clear. I am under no assumption that you trade...trade anything. No one messed up any trades. Our users of the batting order use it very successfully. What you do is criticise from the sidelines and what you do hase no value as a rule. specifically your criticism was "messed up". That is the way it is, that's all. No it is not my handwriting. The group which produces the batting order for Sunday, does all things associated in a cooordinated way before the meeting. It may be that a person canot attend because he is out of the country or a person is "on call". we have all kinds of people each of whom is contributing time and capital to problem solving so their is a lot of coordinating. We organized a Skype arrangement last Sunday for example. At this point the email system has levels that no one person monitors. And it is true there are many many sub groups ploughing along all over the place. as it turns out some people know how to use the batting order and others don't. Your posts indicate that you fail to know how to use it. Thats just the way it is. The objective of the batting order is to have a tool that affords a person 100 10% turns a year. this means that compounding @ 10% and at that frequency capital builds quite nicely. you may not be able to follow the concept of increasing turns to optimum while maintaining a yield per cycle. A trend has three moves so people take that into consideration in many ways. You may not get that either. Many perfomance prints have been posted over the years. Some are older than ET. One of my trades, years ago, was checked by a third party largely because of its cool results. what made is very cool was the net points per share and the number of shares involved. 31 partial fills on the exit. Note: by googling 31 you will probably not find it.
I wouldn't say that whoever bought and sold RNOW on the dates in this list used the "batting order" very successfully. Would you? http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2746963#post2746963 SS314 posted what he said is "a copy of the stock list Jack sends out each week" with buy and sell dates at the above link. Then he posted a "clearstation portfolio" with the same stocks but ignoring the buy and sell dates from the first list which coincidentally makes the stock picks look MUCH better. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2746965#post2746965 I don't think THAT has any value. Especially on a board with so many newbies. My "criticism" was to point out the discrepancy so how is that "messed up" ? Are you saying there's not a huge discrepancy? Do you think it's appropriate to claim the "batting order" does this on a trading board teeming with newbies?
Jack, If I read correctly, I think you just said that I was "mentally short changed". But, I would have to say that a professional software developer (with a bachelors and masters from Hopkins) who has written a profitable automated trading system from the "ground up" is clearly not "mentally short changed". But, hey, this is a public forum. You and I are both free to write whatever we want. So, uhhh....... Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate it. Jason