So now that we're finally getting down to something that actually pertains to trading, perhaps you could explain how this strategy plays out, i.e., the stochastics, the MACD, the various timeframes, the rockets, the icebergs, the surfing, etc. If the entire strategy is as simple as you imply, why is it that so few people understand it after so many hundreds of pages across at least three separate threads?
I think it is because gms' work is the first clear synopsis of the whole thing. As you implied, finally there is a workable blueprint.
Synopses are one thing, but systems are built on details. If synopses were enough, then the simplest synopsis of O'N would be buy high, sell higher.
LOLOL! I swear db', you do make me laugh a lot. I wish we didn't feud so much. You have some of the funniest sayings. What is that one about putting lipstick on a pig? Or a cow stuck in the mud? Oh well, that was just my opinion as to why there seem to be so few who understand.
I am not sure if rockets or icebergs or surfing are part of the stock strategy and they have not been mentioned by gms either. I guess these elements pertain to Jack's intraday trading strategy that still awaits its interpreter, its gms, so to speak. After about 300 pages we are still waiting...
Hi dbphoenix, the information you compiled is interesting. Can you please give an example i.e. a graphic of a blue chip which performed along the method recently? Please mark entry, stop level and gain target. Thanks!
I'll add the major point of what I have done here. People have to be successful. Reading stuff and applying it are two different things. A person has to use the minimum capital possible until he learns a small piece of the whole while he continues to succeed. You will find out someday that the intellectual part of how it all works is less important that building the path to becoming expert. You can easily see from that writeup that the writeup is simply intellectual puffing. When I say to a person to trade rockets only until you triple your original capital, I have said something that embodies the primary path to success. This comment about what to do is accompanied by another direction. That direction is to take your original capital out when you have tripled profits.. It is pure unadulterated bull to believe an intellectual simplistic articulation of something that is as stated by whomever is how the job gets done achieving transference and engendering success. What is needed more and deeply is the prosess that guarantees success. Process. I am stating that the process of going by plateaux and, asap, removing initial capital is more the core of this than other things. This post is to direct your attention to how success in insured. it is done by processing not leaning the facts and taking a test by regurgitating. That ends about First Form. regurgitating falls by the wayside and is replaced by tranforming and creating the raw input into something wholistic and which demonstates results that have utility. In this case the creation of capital from capital. Money. Gms hasn't scratched the surface. He does not know how markets work apparently from his questions and harranges. There is no way he is going to learn either from the vantage point he occupies. He is a pedantic reguritator To get the job done of becoming an expert and trade with SCT, a person goes through a process where all the NLP picutures based upon the myths and garbage of a person's life are systemmatically dealt with in a context of ever increasing and steady successes. The dealing requires that no voids are created, but on the other hand a rational repeatable process is invoked to affect an ultimate substitution through verification and exchange. The intellectual context is nothing new. It is just a weldment of essential knowledge. kowboy is a crock. He epitomises the person who thinks "tell me" is how the world works. Most of the peole who posted here fit into the kowboy mold. He has sat passively on the sidelines (for years) never able to risk the first step of the process that is before ET. By now you either are engaged in the process or you have said "I am chicken to take the risk to engage". There is no test of efficacy involved in doing work to learn ever. You either step up to the line and do it or fuck up. I provide over and over and over another opportunity to learn. You learn then you decide if something is bullshit. You don't decide first then walk away. The classic post of thred fader, "I knew this stuff was bogus, crap etc from the first post I read by blah blah blah... this is a chicken clucking... just a harmless chicken farting... Success is achieved through a working process. Measuring who is staying on the sidelined and not understanding is just trivial. That is the chicken count.... This is not an entity that is judged by understanding it. Understanding it intellectually is just a simplistic academic exercise and more importantly it is self deceiving. Now one gets greades for understanding anything in the financial industry. Grades aren't handed out. This process in the financial industry is called making money using SCT in commodities and using tomorrow's newspaper today in equities. You go from the beginning, plateau by plateau. You take out your original capital for NLP reasons. Successful people using these methods cannot lose money in the long run; they trade and invest only profits and no original capital. Don't congratulate anyone for writing down some substantive intellectual content. That writer hasn't even come to the starting line of the process. Read this again to get yourself oriented. What is under consideration here is cut from a different cloth than most people ever get to see. This process required seeking and sowing. the people who are doing it are bcompetent by completing the processes at hand. I spent 47 years getting to this keyboard and I did the job that was required to get here just like every other successful person in the world. Now I am giving it to others who want it month by month every day.
Because it is not what he thinks it is. It is a process. we do not surf we slalom. He left out the name it seems. It is SCT. Few people understand it because they do not know how to learn by a process. This is not an academic deal. this is an applied pragmatic enterprise.
Blue chips do not pass the culling; they are too risk intensive because of their quality. There would be many other reasons too but they are academic. If you read the above first post, you should know this before posting.
This points out once again that you do not know what you are talking about. The process is the blueprint. At some point you will have to begin to think. Why do you think phoenix asked the questions he did. He asked because he does not yet know anything useful for making money. Cliff notes must be your ET level.