Spydie, I think you fail to appreciate how seditious Jack and SCT are. If everybody starts doing it, soon we will be taking in each others's wash. Do I need to remind you of the fate of systems that once worked: parabolic SAR, price/MA crossovers, dual MA crossovers, rainbows? TA books are boneyards of things that once worked. Now you can fuck up ES if you want, but SCT works in NQ in a very limited circumstance that I would not want to see go away.
I will say this once only. Jack's hubris is to think that limit order traders exist to give him money. My volume analysis indicates that right now not many people are trading SCT at critical points. When they DO, and start taking too much of the market makers' pie, they will fuck you over with whipsaws that will drain your accounts and confidence. What they do is make the crowd net wrong. If you disturb that balance they will make YOU part of the crowd. Everybody thinks I'm a fucking idiot for recommending Alan Farley's book because it's so hard to follow. Read it. Or Shabacker.
princess and sport ???? Why don't you just come out of the closet don't worry it's 2007, no one will laugh at you anymore and you will feel so much better about those secret desires for David Hasselhoff. :eek:
I chose, at the beginning of the document, "Building Minds for Building Wealth" to request that the reader do something. Because of my past traning in a field that requires malpractise insurance. I am just a person who has to automatically and thoroughly assess the starting point of any process I engage in. There are many such fields and things people engage in where this is a practical and sensible practice. If you fly you may notice it happening for your benefit before each flight. When I an my copilot get ready to fly, we even check each other out as we do our ground chcecks. We duplicate a process, in effect, because we both have the same concerns and we both feel the obligation of each making a malfunction discovery is an important standard of consideration. So I ask a person the make a self assessment of themselves, where I have a remote relationship with the person and the flow is unilateral. I am not there but I have a concern for the reader. The concern I have for the reader, apparently, was not well articulated for two reasons: you didn't get it and you are taking the trouble to shoot the messenger and editor. It gets worse. You mistake the point I was making. I certainly, as you see, did not allow for that. This may accounting in on way or another for the high failure rate that we have in the poll. Right now many people who will not try the method are asking people who try and can't do the method to tell them why they failed. You are one of the few who are reporting out from the viewpoint of shitcanning the method by just having an adverse reaction to a request that you self assess briefly as you begin something. Thank goodness not many books on trading start off with a request for a self assessment. It would be a stumbling block for people like you. The lowest level of the learning module is a 10 part assessment system (called Assessor) and every module (10 each) on six levels begins with a four part question where the person gets to debunk three myths if he already hasn't done so. We are doing these small interludes to try to keep the slate clean as we begin specific purposeful processes. Anyway, it is fortunate that you dropped your consideration of what we do based on your mistaken reasoning of our request that you take a moment to understand your personal starting point in an undertaking. The value in my spending time on your story and its results is that, by others reading this, many people such as those like yourself, will be able to save themselves countless hours in going any farther. This is a very fortunate happening and should allow many people to ignore my posts and the journals on what I advocate. At this moment I am reflecting on all the similar types of roadblocks to beginning the use the methods that have been set up by people who are doing these things. If any roadblock is encountered by anyone and they feel the roadblock is rational and objective, then they should abide by the viewpoint the roadblock represents. There are several that are particularly appealing to me. This are not roadblocks we have set up but they are also quite valuable as filters that do serve the same purpose. When we block greedy people, we know we have eliminated a kind of follow on eventuality that greedy people do. When we eliminate people who skip steps and invent fixes that will block later high level trading we have eliminated a follow on eventuality that discindigrates the house of cards to person was actually building. The externally eveloped roadblocks and getting pretty good and in some cases there are some intrlocks that form fences across ranges when barriers are helpful. So the six contemporary roadblocking forums that are rolling are getting the job done. Anyone who finds them irrational does get to consider the methods simply as the consequence of assessing the validity (or lack of) the roadblock. The perfomance set of roadblocks has been up graded this cycle because some additions and combinations of nonfacts have emerged. That works quite well. These objections form a bulwark of "if it makes this much money........then, I certainly do not want to do it". The space between If and Then has many parts. The time wasting them is a good roadblock. And many people have helped butress this roadblock. America has a very strong tradition in education to try to get the least for what you pay for. In this case valuing time that could be spent is particularly significant. By not spending it, you get to not have a result that has a value. Fortunately, that value is not determinable from the outside. So the roadblock just works to the extent of the person comtemporary value of time. People who do know what the time is worth, again, cannot convey that to others except among themselves. The cardinal external roadblocks, the performance and the work required, do eliminate the two kinds and the extrodinary kind of persons who find rationality in either or both roadblocks. These are largely people who are seasoned in CO or CW and who have broad beliefs and behavior in working to the Pascal and Fermat standards of success and reasoning. They are past the ability to be open to a paradigm that cannot be manifested as an effort that is a transition out of the CO and CW. If you are supporting and building comfort and confidence in something with a person who operates in a seasoned way in a paradigm that yields sicentifically measured fear, anxiety and anger, then you have your work cut out for you. for me this is especially true because I have been dealing with both the ball park and the batting cage. the ball park is where the inexhaustable rancor comes from and not so much the batting practice and doing besball. People seasoned and active in one sport are really challenged in investing time in a new sport to them. It is a god idea to let all the roadblocks be set in place to prevent them from engaging in a process that is going to be continually uncompfortable and unsupported by their deep beliefs. thier tradition of vent anger in trading is not something that can be turned intoconfidence as we strive for. the tradition of CO and CW it "to take abreak" when the fear anxiety and anger reach specified limits. All CO and CW coaches encourage getting rid of thecreated energy in non trading high engergy consumption prusuits and on a regular basis. PVT and SCT sport training is recommended as a way of sharpening the mind on the other hand. Different set of psorts it turns out. So in 2007, ET is supporting a filtering process on a new and more sustained level. We thank the filterers again as we did recently. We also thank those who have felt the urge to reason their way ovr to our work sites here at ET. I am no longer going to comment here and in the other 5 places where the fandango goes on because it is not a good use of your time to read what I write nor mine to be writing responses to the roadblockers who have their own agendas. You may actually get to see me on CNBC next month. If anything I will just be a ringer and falitating keeping he program on target from a substantive point of view. I'll be posting mostly to bring the equities trading up to the expert level. As has been pointed out, a self assessment of your beliefs and behavior at the beginning of an endeavor is a dumb idea that you wife would probably shoot you for if you talking about it at the diner table. This just seems so much like humor to me. It is a far side comic to me.
Jack, why were you posting just when a breakout should be occurring? I could have coded and tested a new system in the time it took you to write that rambling post. Go for brevity and clarity. Be succinct! Or go extinct! Re character self-assessment, you seem to think we need to be fixed. Have you forgotten the NLP dictum "What can you do with a problem like that?". Every flaw I have, and they are legion, helps me to be a successful trader.
Have you read seriously in it? Some good shit there. Trust avuncular old Hypo! Have I ever lied to ET?
OVER ONE MONTH AGO, I wrote that there's NO WAY you would participate OPENLY in the CNBC contest under your real name for the duration of the contest. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1359525#post1359525 IMO, if you show up it's ONLY because you have several accounts and you're hoping one will pan out. COME ON BIGSHOT, PROVE ME WRONG. TELL US NOW IF YOU'RE PARTICIPATING AND, IF SO, WHAT YOUR CONTEST NIC IS / NICS ARE.
Lighten up Francis. I have never seen a woman like you, get her panties into such a bunch, as you do over something posted on a web site. The quote to which you referred has Jack indicating you may get to see him on CNBC. To me, that means he may find himself on camera. I did not see Jack say why he may find himself on camera. Rather than jump (no leap) to conclusions, why not simply ask, "Hey Jack, Why (and more importantly, when ) can we expect to see you on CNBC?" I realize TYPING YOUR POST IN ALL CAPS adds so much more drama to the discussion, but you really get your panties tied all up into a knot over what this 73 year old man posts? Quite comical. - Spydertrader
Jack Hershey I was invited I said yes. They asked me to submit Q's for show. I did. I am, in effect, a ringer for the show. They said: Security will ask for your photo ID and a copy of this email. Its for the CNBC.COM Million Dollar Portfolio Challenge. I used the name trader666 which is famous they tell me. But to be on the show I have to use a first and last name that they could verify by phone which two people did separately. I asked for your phone number long ago so you could be on show. I told you to pm it to me. They have a bio on me as the interview result. I pretended to be trader666 for the interview. I knew as soon as the people at CNBC got wind of your entry (through employees there) that you would be asked to be on TV. What can I do???
LOL..Very amusing...I like when you chose to be decipherable... What do you say Jack??Would you consider starting up an EOD journal with whatever rules you chose to trade by as well as openly disclose?? Unless you love the "attention"....