This is a classic waiting on the sidelines charater posting. You discern that two approaches are in vogue and that gms is doing the checkers version. phoenix mixes a lot of odds and ends into it.
I'm not certain of the thread count, this strategy involves equities only [therefore, at this point, I don't know about MACDs referenced from the futures thread as to their use if at all in this strategy], unlike the 'stochastic indicator' thread, but certainly contains some of the same information [from jack hershey] as he posted in the 'william o'neill canslim' thread [or whatever it was called]. I perused his posts there, and admittedly, have had to read and reread and recite his writings aloud in order to better understand. I've been inundating him with questions and requests for clarification to his annoyance, and have culled together what I submitted when the coming forth of someone to clearly post the strategy was asked for in the other thread. I can't speak for the people who understand it; I can't speak for those that don't understand it; I can't verify if only a few understand it or not. But I can give you [again] my take on why I think any person may have a hard time reading through Jack's posts. This would be based on my observation and experience here. I have noticed a fair amount of flames spring up right after Jack posts some wordy obtuse phrasing. Obviously, as a solo act, he does not transmit thought to paper (or to web server) in such a way that is easily understood. Some of it is. Some of it gets understood if you read around a few posts 'cause some details are to be found scattered throughout. He stumbles over common writers' problems such as referencing ideas that are still in his head rather than written down, he references the subject when he means to reference the predicate, he misuses the possessive sense, and there are always typos, but in addition, he writes in a cryptic manner. I'm sure there's more. None of this of course reflects on whether the strategy is efficient or not. It only reflects on his writing skills. I can tell from some of his thoughts that he does know the premise of teaching, but he seems to let something [I can't qualify what it is, I don't know him] get in the way. Anyhow, as I wrote, a fair amount of flames spring up afterwards. They are usually, from what I've read, very helpful mature professional remarks, such as, and I paraphrase, "JACK YOU IDIOT!" and "WTF R U talking about you senile F@%#? You are a looser!" [sic] Now, I'm not sure, but these may be some of the people that don't understand Jack's writing. Other than that, to the question proposed in this thread: "If the entire strategy is as simple as you imply, why is it that so few people understand it. " My answer would have to be: "Ask them."
After reading your opinion about gms and kowboy who seemed to help you out in presenting your 'strategy' to the masses I am forced to conclude that you are an arrogant egomaniacal individual of the kind you accuse inandlong to be. I won't lower myself to using your vocabulary so just take this as a hint... And have a goooood night...
I state again for the record, I do not write as a spokesperson for, or interpreter for, or on Jack Hershey's behalf. What I post is as I understood his strategy at the point of posting. Even though now Jack attacks me verbally in this thread and the other (because I sought to incite a stepped-up writing performance from the man and because I ask what I deem to be reasonable fair questions, which in turn he wishes to consider as harranguing posts and questions of a trivial nature), I had felt I'd respond to a reasonable request, just as I'd favor someone responding to my requests/questions for similar edification.
Just a thought: I've been thinking Jack is a coach in his profession. The success of Gms case and the current input from both Jack and Gms would lead me to this direction again. Some coaches can train/coach athletics or entrepreneurs to be successful and famous, but the coaches themselves might never be successful athletics or entrepreneurs. A coach/trainer may speak the same motivational words and/or technical instructions to a group of trainees, but the personal understanding as well as the individual outcome from the trainees could be quite different.
I do not share their views. Now you know why I don't. They want the facts about a method. It turns out the process is what is important. People are getting their first efforts at measuring this stuff as a process. They are beginning to count pages. Processestake place over time in a daily context of the market. This is why pages come to be. It may sound strange to you so you assign descriptors to me. People in ET have seen others do a process to gain skills and experience. Kowboy and gms sit on the sidelines instead of whatever. I do not think what you assign to me as thinking about inandlong. We all want you to tell us what you think of me. Personnally it is a relief to see you post. For a while I thought you might be in ET to consider trading stuff or something related to making money and that could involve me as a remote possibility. I can't imagine why you keep reading all my stuff and that of those working on it.
bubba, you are welcome to post in this forum, but your continued use of profanity is unwelcome and inappropriate. This is not my rule, it is an ET rule. Check it out for yourself. That other moderators allow you to use whatever language you choose does not mean that it is acceptable. I have deleted the profanities from your posts, as I have everyone else's. Posting is an intentional act. Stop posting profanities.
db, After all of your experience with IAL, why would you make this post in the trading forum, giving him the opportunity to modify or delete your words as he wishes? Take it out of his jurisdiction.
Inandlong, Baron weighed in on the cursing issue just this month: I read this to mean that every single swear does not have to be removed. Please give people a break here. We are not in 6th grade and do not need someone like you to act like a sixth grade teacher and tell us what we can and can't say.