... and you know all about the sock puppets, dontcha? LOL True, true. It was only interesting to bash Jack when there was the potential that we could be refuted ... I used to wait with baited breath for the day when a Jack Lackey would produce blotters and blotters of the extraordinary amount of wealth they were achieving using his channel trading paradigms and pool extraction algorithms. But all we ever got were more charts with lines ad infinitum, the second stringers killing us with their one and two lot trades, and now Neoxx, the Crown Prince to match Jack's King with No Clothes. My, how times have changed indeed.
hanks for posting the chart, Ehorn. Is that really all you are using? No YM? No longer term channels (like daily)? No indicators, oscillators or EMAs?
Unlike yourself I have only ever posted to this web site under one username. Since you cannot say the same thing Mr. JimmyJam, I'd stop trying to project your own behavior onto others. Your pattern recognition skills need work if you attribute comments to me made under any other username than Spydertrader. - Spydertrader
I skimmed this thread that intended to examine the Technical Strategy thread found in the Strategy Trading forum. For clarification, with respect to substantive content on SCT and the algorithm from which it is derived, pool extraction, I feel obliged to make a few substantive comments in a series of posts here. To take the market's offer, some arbitrary decisions must be made. It is also true that to take the market's offer, a partnership with the market is essential. The basis of the partnership is not determined intellectually. This thread so far is a rehash of several things but mostly it is another thread where I am being made an object of this and that. Any actual substantive content related to any critical or essential topics related to the method and its basis are missing so far. Before I take up the intent of this post, I want to reflect on a few things that relate to my past. When I was living and working on the outskirts of Zurich, there was an overlap with the Jung Institute. Over time and given the opportunity, I declined to change horses and become part of their staff. Being in a colleagual relationship with those of the Jung Institute was enjoyable and informative and I feel that it would have been a mutually successful experience. The OP of this thread, separates himself from opportunity after opportunity. One of the very high quality aspects of the Jung Institute was the effort made on two fronts: service to the field and service to those who wished to become more than they were by getting the best care and support. Both of these interests are consistently and completely foreign to the OP. They are not to me and I am not his foil. I spent a decade of my life examining how Q and A works for the same pursuit as Socrates but in an opposite manner. My results were procesed during that period by ETS based upon a 100% sample pre-post for a decade. The ETS stated unequivocally that the results I got were not possible. Now, in modern times, it is possible to understand why it was, in fact, possible. ET was unable to accomodate the range of people who come to ET. It is not worth explaining why. In a few years there will be places where people can get what they need more readily. And there will always be a great many peoplle who are "B" people on the web. Over many years many of us have examined how it is possible to transfer, from us to others, an algorithm and its associated applications. Our conclusion is that making use of the related ATS's are the most efficient mechanism. Here you see applying an advanced beginner simple application of pool extraction to a poor fractal choice affords taking over 3x times the daily ATR. The principles of pool extraction that I use have been posted here without distortion. People come to these principles and, on occasion, a person thinking critically, can, for himself, originate the principles from within. In other words, the principles arrive consciously through exposure or through critical thinking. Understanding them is not difficult under most conditions. Some of the exceptions have been demonstrated here as expected. These principles are difficult to understand and use by people who have built their minds by decisions they have made in the past and, usualy, before becoming exposed to the stated principles. The mind becomes differentiated as consequences of many prior decisions. This differentiation denies that person the ability to set up and conduct a partnership with the market. The OP specifically demonstrates this inability, as a consequence of past decisions. Look for his posts on why he cannot get to 2 contracts. Next, I will point out thoroughly just what isn't going on for the OP that I had to forcefully deal with in the Technical Strategy to further its prupose. Then I will get on with the substantive aspects I first mentioned.
The OP states the 1% rule he obeys to deal with trading and investing. He got to this place by decsions he made and the consequences given to him. This is a sympathetic state and status. The three principles of the algorithm lead to the opposite state and status: parasympathetic. The sympathetic stae denies a partnership and the parasympathetic state affords the partnership. How this comes about has been explained and illustrated in the Technical Strategy thread. The RESULT is that a person either trusts the market or he doesn't. The OP doesn't and he cannot. I spent considerable effort and content and machinerey to deal with this in the Technical Strategy thread. The emwave pc measures the range of coherence from sympathetic to parasympathetic. Trust, when gained and maintained, is registered as parasynpathetic (full coherence). SCT traders demonstrate their partnership with the markets and the partnership's principal characteristics: trust and dealing in certainty.
The three principles of the algorithm are very fundamental and certain. They do not have exceptions and they are comprehensive. There is no tentative aspect of regarding the three principles. If a person can handle the fundamental logic of these principles, then he begins to have the opportunity to have a partnership with the markets. The shortcut around the principles is simple. The trader accepts what the market says or tells. The OP didn't understand the principles nor did he take the shortcut. He questions the market and everything in sight. This is a modus that can be recognized in almost every post made in this and most other threads. This sort of approach to the opportunity of the market's offer simply denies the opportunity forever.
I chose, at first, to accept what the market spoke, said and told. My mind was unformed at the time. It was uninformed as well. In 1957, information was not easily available. The market's offer was not easily available as a matter of the supply of information. Papers informed and so did the Ticker tape an electromechanical device. these devices had "bugs" as a reference to the fact that before electromechanical machines were started in those days, they were either vacuumed or air blasted to assure the moths that could have taken residence were expelled. The principles were the best I could come up with that represented the total picture and the certainty of the markets.
By 20 to 30 years into trading I had learned to "read" other traders. I was able to examine the two elements of the trading relationship separately and in combination. I also got to be in many of the right places at the right time. As usual I was incontact with the top of the line individuals and those who represented the state of the art in getting the job done. Once I determined that the market's offer was the standard against which to measure, I knew to follow the straight away path of refining my taking. Using the medical field's approach on transference became the modus. The medical field makes a very strong effort to transfer real information and methods because of its orientation to the consequences. Here in ET we get to see all the consequences of the paths that people follow. I worked from daily charts of stocks (1957) down to 10 milli second Excel spread sheets generated from logic (modern times). The advent of the PC, printer and copier helped along the way. ATS's come from computer languages making their appearance. My mind became differentiated based on the principles and now it is fully differentiated. It is easy for me to examine two things: markets and traders. Traders who get the consequences of poor decisions are denied the opportunity to make money trading in the markets. Most of the posters in this thread do not know or ever will know how to trade as a direct simple consequence of making the wrong decisions. They have build differentiation in their minds that it is not possible to recover from. There are two "capacity" issues on the table. Market capacity (which has been stated in this thread incorrectly by those quoting me) and trader capacity.