That is sincerely great, but your not really trading Jack's system. Your trading your own version of it, exiting trades based upon your "feel", and not the objective criteria laid out by Jack. So, let's not compare apples to oranges.
Either you are not reading all of Jack's work, or you are not fully comprehending it. This is not a "system" - it is a way of trading - a way of "reading" the market. Entries do indeed have specific "rules" for "beginner" and "intermediate" levels - they have been spelled out clearly, and I follow them. Look, if it doesn't work for you, then I am sorry. But when you, or others, imply or state that what Jack is teaching is without merit you insult me and all the others who have learned a lot from this thread - a thread that would be much shorter, and much easier to read were it not for nay sayers.
There were three backtests and they all showed losses. The losses shown varied by one order of magnitude. All of the backtesting seemed to be restricted to the beginner level and did not include doing wash trades. I was hoping that the backtesters could do some iterative refinement as new topics for improving were introduced. Two things happened. There was a perception that nothing new came up and there was no testing for intermediate icebregs nor was there a test of slaloming in congestion as an exit on the fast pace trend end. There was not testing on the point 1,2,3 channel set up to stay in the channel. there was not testing on the use of a second point 3 euther. I did some fractal switching to slow down some hair trifgger stuff. Here is how it went for that. We went to a 15 to 30 min channel one day and the next to a 30 and 60 min channel. In both those days if the fractal indicators had been used a vast amount of the total daily range would have been picked off. Finally go to the choppy market thread and backtest the rules I showed there for the 11, 14, and 18th. With that frequency of daily motif and using those rules (intermediate to expert) you can see, perhaps, that the basis of you comments is something that you can modify by doing about 6 additional backtests so you can tell us how iterative refinement works. Now move to the big leagues. There are many many people smarter than me; their wealth for example speaks for itself. Do a what if. Assume that most people have their own methods and they read stuff here to enhance what they already find to be terrific. Use trendy and wally as examples. Trendy has a method. she might want to stick in a thought from here and improve what she does. Wally made over 10 points in the 18th flat market and only had one screw up of 3+ points. What if he did a wash on the trade that went against him. You can see he is making more daily than the daily spread as it is. He might use a thought from here to "fix" something. A guy on here posted 364 trades and not one wash. His losses weren't quite his wins. What if he decided to not have losses by going out on entries that faded on him. Finally, thanks for your comments. I think the best part of this is the 70 pages. A few people are making a sustained effort to improve. Well I am one of them. As you read the 70 pages, see if there is something there you didn't either invent or know of from your endeavors whatever they might be. Assess them relative to the things you do. Certainly, so far you have rejected everything. The reason you are reading the pages is clear. (We know you skipped a lot too). The pictures you use to comment are clear too. It's something to have a three week attention spand for anyone these days; did you notice the DAL and the Assessment sheets (excel) for equities? If you volunteer your minimum acceptable standard of performance for commodities futures indexes and equities trading, I would really like to learn what the standard are for each of these.
...not an easy one, but... 11:32 S @862.25 11:42 X @860.75 Entered on a "Rocket" signal. Bailed when volume dried up. 02:47 L @870.00 02:52X @871.25 Same as above. Bottom Line: 2 trades - 2 wins - Plus 2 3/4 points.
I don't know about Jack's claims for annual profits (he is probably an exceptional trader), but I've been following his system and trading it using Futures-Trader demo mode and it has improved my results. There is some good stuff here. g
My trades and thoughts on today: 1. 11:05 bar stoch(15.79, 21.14) macd hist -0.5 low of bar 865.00 ---->SHORT SIGNAL (below 25 on 14,1,3) with the low of day right below 864.50 and today had been a range day so far. I waited until the low of day was broken. Short @ 864.25 11:11 Cover @ 861.25 12:01 +3.00 day: +3.00 last 2 days: -0.50 from 11:40 to 12:00 volume decreased significantly 5m macd xo at 11:55. with the minisucle vol and xo i exited BEFORE the stoch crossed back above 25. 2. Now this one is a wowser...at least for me 2:10 stoch(13.04, 27.88) macd hist: -0.44...had me on alert for a short , but then the next bar 2:15 stoch(13.04, 20.46) but no vol (3188) and never broke low of bar so NO TRADE ENTRY, BUT i was now on the look out for a REVERSAL trade based on a potential MACD XO. failed rocket setup ---->macd xo long 2:25 5m MACD XO volume picks up AND a price thrust got me long at 866.50 held as this trade as it turns into a rocket. we then get the vol/price spike at 2:45. and then vol drops off significantly...i wanted to look for a point 3, but with a good profit i checked out at 871.25 @ 3:03 point 3 shows up at 3:10 to me.(i have been struggling trying to get these down..curious what others did) long 866.50 2:31 sell 871.25 3:03 +4.75 day: 7.75 last 2 days: 4.25 the second trade is definitely not a beginner trade, but is a trade jack has talked about: reversing out of a rocket into the opposite direction on a macd xo. anyways attached is my chart of today's action with my trendlines.
I wouldn't be such a nay sayer if Jack didn't keep spouting off about how 45 ES points is normal or that a beginner trading his "methodology" (since you don't like system) should make 90K/yr trading 1 contract, or that an "expert" should make 125K/yr., again trading one contract. His method started out with a specific set of rules. Pages and pages later he adds the +-.40 MACD, then he endorses your 1 min. MACD, then pages later says forget it, pages later now says don't use MACD between +1 and -1. Then introduces channels. I mean WTF? But, the funniest thing is his use of the term KISS. 65+ pages later and he thinks his method is KISS. Jack has no idea what KISS is.
I will assume that your interest is legit, and therefor will respond. The more "complicated" it appears to be, the more clear it becomes. That may sound like doubletalk, but it's true. I have no reason to bullshit you, nor does Jack for that matter.
When Tony Oz's credibility was challenged on this forum about a year ago, he immediately posted his brokerage statement for the previous month to back up his claims. If Jack's method is as good as some people say, and considering he has been posting it in various forums for more than a year now (just search Google Groups), surely either he or one of his accomplished students can post a real record of outstanding performance over a period of a few months. I dont see why that would be so difficult. -bbc
Tony Oz is a vender - his ass was on the line. Why should anyone post statement to prove the method to you? It is a pompous and unrealistic expectation.