I am contributing constructively. I provided clear critiques of three of Jack's dubious assertions. That's called debate, something you are not used to in your other place. We don't have Nazis over here. Responses to my arguments? No? Is perhaps what we want unchallenged acceptance of everything Jack says? I doubt that even Jack was subtle enough in NLP to understand what I meant about "strategies". Hard to have a debate when people aren't smart enough to understand what you mean. Also, I suppose it is unrealistic to expect someone who has no demonstrated ability to trade in real time to debate in real time.
You have progressed to the point that you see edges in several places for SCT. Let's say you get a chance to consider all the rest of them. When you get there, then you have the concept of SCT straight as a seamless continuous collection of edges. It is a limiting case in maths. Keep doing what you are doing and then you may even see that reversing on trades is a helpful way to take profits and be in the next opportunity which you are calling an edge that follows another edge. Seamless is used to describe continuity. So is continuous. The task is to continually make money and occassionmally lock in profits. Edges for you are entries. you omitted the other half of my construct.
Those were answers? I see that you decline to be drawn into a meaningful debate. My remarks were totally relevant because this is all about YOU, and I have read everything you have ever posted here. In fact, I know some of it better than you do, because you make it up as you go, and conveniently forget what you have changed. You sneaked into NLP and now you won't follow through. You denigrate edge trading, but admit that SCT is a collection of edges, and yet you fail to see the illogic of the two positions. You profess to be attuned to the needs of individual traders, but you sell them a one-size-fits-all strategy. As to your comments on my trading approach, you have no idea what it is because I haven't shared it.
One critique was (IMO) off topic... one was speculation... the third was fine. I opened the third up for additional discussion.
I am not surprised that Roanoke did not condescend to answer. Your baseball analogy is all wet with references to visual and kinesthetic elements that have no counterpart in trading.
Who is whining now?? sheesh. Some people debate to find the truth... typically those with this attitude can easily identify others on "the team." In Roanoke I see someone here who is just trying to win a game he invented. He is trying to force his "opponents" to his own strengths... he wants to get off on technicalities... this is THE PLAGUE of ET.
What happened to the environmental problem you posed? Do we have a little problem with attention span? Keep it crisply OT, please, or I shall be forced to punch "complain". BTW, in your post above I failed to see any reasoned counter to the points raised, which IMO were quite valid.
Don't mince words with me, boy. Your post was phrased as an analogy or metaphor. A paradigm, in anybody's dictionary, is "an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype". If you meant it to be paradigmatic, it should have used a trading example. Your whole approach is symptomatic of a jock's bias toward trading, which quite to the contrary is the most cerebral game going. There is a very clear distinction, IMO, between the Mark Douglasses of the trading world and the Ari Kievs. But you digress. What has any of this to do with controlling the trading environment, unless indirectly it is an admonition to keep ET out of your trading day?