Right on target , I smell real traders and Jack ain't one of them, an "academic" exercise at best. Only God can claim never having a losing trade.........................
You can do what you want. I have been doing what I do the same way for quite a while. I don't express what I do too much. Maybe someday some scientists can begin to evaluate how high velocity traders, in general, trade. Then maybe they can move on to some really fun stuff. I do not expect it until after these four books. The fifth will nail it. It hasn't happened yet with others. I am lucky. When I am in a place with highly skilled traders; there is a lot of agreement on how it works. The best people I have seen relate it to the public are: John Letto. Jon Anderson Farmer (with consideration to post 911) and five or six others. All have different methods and they overlap greatly. None of them use the conventional orthodoxy. they are way past the wizard documentation. Non puiblic commentary does exist. And the persons do not tout publically what they do privately Senters and Parker would be examples. The best online guy who has a feel for "scale" meaning how you can estimate coarsely from formations, is Kahn of Barrons. All of the above guys have highly developed BS detectors. they shut down in a NY minute. Some people get really good at trading; they have a common bond. It just arrives in the space in a short time when they are together. Uniqueness is recognized and there are no power struggles, feelings of competition (since there is none in trading), or other flak in the space. The last thing to note is that the mind operates in a way that can be explained . It may not be possible for the listener to get it usually but I have seen it happen with people who are either highly skilled practitioners or people who know, for real, a lot of the science of the mind. So far in ET I have just stuck with the sports memory description. It is not what people who do it ultimately come up with when they are getting down and dirty. It has more to do with intimacy as related to another thing that is recognizable as a living thing. People who do the work on a valid schema do get to become part of the group that can know and witness markets as they really are. Thats the way it turns out. Playing around isn't part of the above. Too bad you can't give it a break once and for all.
Who amongst the big winners (or even moderate) in the P&L 2007 thread trades your method Jack. I don't actually have a problem with what you've said but given the magnitude of the claims you'd think that someone would be able to demonstrate that they're real.
Duhhhhhhhhhhh, spit it out jack, a metaphor, and a dirty one at that, like you riding a bike in your spandex, smiling as you cross the landscape, the golf course in the background, the greens begging to to be putted, your swollen prostate aching like our heads reading your slack. Quote from jack. So far in ET I have just stuck with the sports memory description. It is not what people who do it ultimately come up with when they are getting down and dirty. It has more to do with intimacy as related to another thing that is recognizable as a living thing.
What if the "Hershey Method" were renamed the "Supertrader Method?" Would practitioners, non-practitioners, and Jack view it any differently?
To all. Kindly desist from the name calling, or I will have no opportunity to make a rational case. While it IS telling that Jack manipulates all critical threads so that they degenerate, we are not going to continue that here. So far I have asserted that: 1) SCT does not have the claimed broad applicability to trading, because 2) I have the counter example of idiosyncratic, non-SCT like behavior in NQ. REAL traders who can disagree with either assertion are invited to do so, if they can wade through this shit spout in a toilet. After sufficient time has passed to permit such responses, I shall continue with my reasoning. So go take out all that aggression out in the market and come back after RMH ready to reason.
Who amongst the big winners (or even moderate) in the P&L 2007 thread trades your method Jack. I don't actually have a problem with what you've said but given the magnitude of the claims you'd think that someone would be able to demonstrate that they're real. Second attempt.
It is Jack's m.o., indeed the m.o. of the entire SCT crew, to avoid answering simple, direct questions in a clear, straightforward manner.