Great article. Someone who is new to trading should read it few times over. People who trade and survived first year, can say yep, yep, yep. Pabst posts are always interested to read. While many of us have our different political views, trading is another world.
Many of us share your disgust for Pabst's bigotry, which is not bound by his feelings about 'nigs', as he calls them (African Americans). This isn't the place to enumerate his prejudices. I read the article and while you are right about the grammar (which I would describe as terrible), the fact is that the vast majority of readers won't notice it, because their own language skills are just as bad. Regarding the content, most of it is fairly generic. I examined the article paragraph by paragraph, looking for something that actually explains 'how a disciplined trader measures risk', which is something we would expect to get in an article entitled 'How a Disciplined Trader Measures Risk'. All I found was a suggestion that in wider range conditions, stops must be widened and positions sized down, and this para On a sharply lower open both Bill and Ted become buyers. Bill though has analyzed prior gap down opens and knows his thesis is violated if prices break down more than a few ticks below the opening range. Bill then places a sell stop at an appropriate level. Bill is merely playing the odds. He realizes you "win some lose some" and he's confident enough in his methodology that no matter the result of any individual trade, over a wide enough sample he'll be profitable. Bill also knows that a single huge loser can wipe out weeks of small, steady profits. Ted on the other hand lacks a cohesive plan. If the market goes lower after his purchase he'll rely on anecdotal observations. "Yes I'm stuck long higher but the markets already had a historic break. A rally is certainly due. If we plunge further I'll just buy a bit more. Besides the Fed could ease at any moment." Not sure if this is what he meant or not. So Pabst is selling advisory services now? Interesting. I wonder if he takes money from blacks, Jews or homosexuals.
Why don't you suck my cock you flaming homosexual POS, probably a nig or spic...or a jew...maybe both. And while you're at it be sure to take in right up in the rump roast you faggot....you know nothing you amateur. And then you will admire that fact that I took two Popsicle sticks and rubbed them together to make a life long 300.million Stake....in spite of the Jews on the CBOT. P.S Be sure to sign up for my website.
Actually you are much better off writing how your audience speaks, your conversion can do down quit a bit if you come off as a snotty, and in a lot of cases perfectly correct grammar has a way of making you look that way.
Very good point. Some people might intentionally dumb down their writing in order to avoid sounding snotty. I'm sure my writing comes off as pretty snotty sometimes. In this case, Pabst ain't fakin' it. As he told us, he has an IQ of 141 (Weschler). Therefore, he's one of those extremely rare individuals - a near-genius whose language skills are below 12th grade level. In the end, though, I have no problem with Pabst stepping up to take a turn at the trough. I've always said that when a credulous newb pays someone to tell them when to enter, the losses he suffers are a part of the learning process. I have no problem with people who identify sheep and proceed to fleece them.
his article was like a genius teaching 3rd grade math. i been there, i'm an adult. i've been around the block a time or two. give me real insight tell me smthg i don't already know or haven't read a 1000 times before
I agree that text can be informal. In fact, I prefer simple sentences presented in a straightforward, almost conversational manner. However, an article doesn't have to be grammatically incorrect to come across as casual. As it happens, Pabst's article has far fewer errors than most of his posts here at ET. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that he was trying to clean it up. He just missed a few spots. But that's neither here nor there. I only made a passing remark about the grammar. The principal focus of my earlier post was on content. P.S. I don't think this post has any grammatical errors. Was that too snotty of me?
T-Dog, sometimes it's hard for people like us to see this, but even the phrase 'the principal focus' would jar on a lot of people. They would say 'the main point' and would not attempt to syntactically link the word 'focus' with the word 'on', because they don't know if it's 'principle' or 'principal' (Pabst falls into this category, as we have seen in his posts in P & R, which are rife with [rife with!!] spelling and grammatical errors, despite his self-professed IQ of 141). Please know that I am in no way suggesting you don't know what you're talking about; this is IMO only. Your paragraph was very well constructed. There are people who don't have the language skills to construct sentences like this. You have developed them, either by reading or by training. However, I agree 100% with your premise that a properly constructed paragraph need not come off as snotty. A paragraph can be conversational in tone and grammatically perfect.