You believe your line of thinking and questioning to be reasoned, but it stems from ignorance towards the intent of the exercise referenced. SCT (as does PVT) has limits and they are based on the markets capacity and this has been stressed on many occasions. Sector Rotation has no limits (theoretically). The exercise you refer to was a demonstration of money velocity and its correlation to trader skill and experience. The ramping of contracts are not the most relevant measure or purpose of the exercise. The slope of the curve per unit time is the differentiator. One can choose to scalp for 14 bucks/day to cover some overhead costs, or one may wish to increase his/her money velocity to a level which appears "unbelievable" or "astonishing" to many. This may even appear to be hubris as you mention. But either way, both methods extract from the "pool". Certainly, the markets are no video game. I believe that these techniques allow a trader to very much "recognize and flow with them to your profit", even is one does not ever visit a bank in Monte Carlo. Results are all that matter. So here are a few simple rhetorical questions ... If one achieves results by studying and applying any technique then that is good? And if so, then is it also good if said person(s) demonstrate great spirit of charity and sharing? And if these can be concluded then why criticise such efforts? These are not questions I am looking for an answer to seeing as I am acquanted with the fact that "knowledge is already known, but it is not remembered".
Allegory of the Cave "Plato imagines a group of people who have lived chained in a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of the cave entrance, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows." According to Plato, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to seeing reality. A perfect explanation of the cult-like following of Jack Hershey, and an apt description of Neoxx and his zealotry. Nothing ever changes, least of all human nature.
Much better, thank you, though I did sense a bit of hostility and condescension toward my modest person, and you threw in PVT as a red herring. No matter. The ramp up curve was most certainly presented as realistic because Jack said in that very post ES can support 100,000 contracts in play by one individual. My knowledge of ES is a bit hazy, but let us postulate 2 million trades a day, and a need for limit order traders in the ensemble to make the ensemble of those trades lose by a tick. By my calculation only one trader making 3X a 50 point range day would make limit order traders only break even if he traded 1667 contracts. Perhaps you have thought this through better than I and can correct my arithmetic.
As to Jack's charity, and my lack thereof, I am focussing on Neoxx because his support group has done him no service by encouraging him in sideshows unrelated to trading. He needs to TRADE. Not spend money on unnecessary computing horsepower, distracting hyper personal awareness and endlessly repetitive charting. In this I mean no disrespect to Neoxx, any more than I would to any poster child. Charting is not trading. Regardless of the merits of SCT or the lack thereof, real world execution issues are far more important than theory. Thanks, Ehorn, you are a brave man. A modern day Daniel where the lions can't eat you, only spit on you.
Great questions and an interesting approach to determining just what the capacity might be. I have not thought this through, but I might say that your postulation may require more variables and accuracy to consider quantifying for x times range given y capacity. For instance was the day in question a trending day or otherwise. Also, is nM contracts suitable for such a range. These are maths best left for someone more qualified than myself seeing as I have never yet had to concern myself with capacity thresholds.
When faced with the reality that SCT has as much legitimacy as Bernie Madoff's Ponzi schemes they will grasp at any straw they can find. Anything to obfuscate the facts and distract the viewer from the fact that SCT is a total Boondoggle.
Agreed, Ehorn, my numbers are probably way off, just a quick hack in an alcohol-induced haze. But you get the point. I, too, have a long way to go to need to worry about it. Later I'll talk about how many contracts one can actually trade at the peaks and troughs you seek to capture. That, at least, is less open to debate. My point in general is that there is way too much theology and not enough market reality in Jack's assertions. If I am wrong as the thread progresses, I am sure your adherents will make me look foolish with great relish. And maybe even mustard. As to my own faults, let me stipulate further that I take no small pleasure in questioning Jack because he can be such a supercilious ass. Not unlike myself. But I have broader issues that he is giving you fish rather than teaching you to fish. The great joy I experienced in considering SCT was in asking "Why should it be that way?", and discovering that indeed it isn't. Aspiring traders are far better off learning the market by trial and error and seeking original solutions, rather than following a guru.