I would but I would have to shoot you afterwards .... and as much pleasure as that would give me I will pass. As I said, if you could read, I was very close with several NLP "insiders".
Scientific analysis of NLP NLP has been empirically tested over many years and many of its models and methods have been found to be largely ineffective [162]. In relation to current understanding of neurology and perception, NLP is in error (Bertelsen, 1987), and instead of being grounded in contemporary, scientifically derived neurological theory, NLP is based on outdated metaphors of brain functioning and is laced with numerous factual errors (Druckman and Swets 1988). The 1988 US National Committee (a board of 14 prepared scientific experts) report found that "Individually, and as a group, these studies fail to provide an empirical base of support for NLP assumptions...or NLP effectiveness. The committee cannot recommend the employment of such an unvalidated technique"[163]. In addition, Edgar Johnson, technical director of the Army Research Institute heading the NLP focused Project Jedi stated that "Lots of data shows that NLP doesn't work"[164]. NLP has failed to yield convincing evidence for the NLP model, and failed to provide evidence for its effectiveness [165]. The conjecture that a person has a preferred representational system (PRS), which is observed in the choice of words, has been found to be false according to rigorous research reviews [166][167]. The assertion that a person has a PRS which can be determined by the direction of eye movements found even less support [168][169]. A single critique by Einspruch and Forman (1985) stated that Sharpley's[170] review of NLP contained methodological errors. However, Sharpley refuted this and provided further experimental evidence to demonstrate that NLP is ineffective and in error in both method and model[171]. Thus, objective empirical studies [172][173][174] and review papers [175][176] have consistently shown NLP to be ineffective and reviews or meta-analysis have given NLP a conclusively negative assessment, and the reiterated statement is that there is no neuro-scientific basis for any of NLP's claims, or any scientific support for its claimed efficacy [177][178][179][180][181]. Due to general disillusionment with NLP, its mention in psychotherapy journals and books is becoming increasingly rare [182]. NLP proponents have provided not one iota of scientific support for their claims, and as such NLP is considered inappropriate for thorough clinical studies [183]. Professor Robert Carrol [184] states that it is impossible to determine a "correct" NLP model, and that applying one particular model to everyone is over-simplistic and will be no substitute for hard earned expertise and cannot be verified through statistical methods. The fact that some people perceive NLP to work sometimes can be explained by the placebo effect, social pressure, superficial symptomatic rather than core treatment, and overestimating some apparent successes while ignoring, downplaying, or explaining away failures [185].
I'm not into NLP, but I think it is helpful to have a clear, calm mind before beginning the trading day. I think this can best be achieved through meditation and breathing exercises. I'm interested in getting Van Tharp's Peak Performance Course. How much of it is NLP? Is the non NLP material worthwhile? Thanks.
History proved so many times that experts of the time never recognized a newborn theory, and they bitterly and stubbornly claimed its impossibility. This is not to say that it'd be the case for NLP too. And even less for the many gurus who try to milk it, without any personal contribution and even lacking a complete understanding of its principles. I guess we all agree today that the Earth turns. I guess more and more of us agree that the only way to lose weight is to eat less calories and exercise more. Many of us found that homeopathy works. And so on. There are probably even more examples of charlatanism and schools of "thought" based on ignorance ...
================ John; Last question,yes. Several things can help you like years of focus on your market; & ER 2 is a wild child.[move half over @ signal, seems a bit small of a time frame, could be possible with ER2 wildness.] Doubt if Basso meant that remark in a ER2 context; wisdom is profitable to direct. And there is a reason why Basso & the old timers do NOT say the reversal is your friend ; the trend is you friend. Younger they are , the more they want to pick tops/bottoms; almost ALWAYS an area , not a single point. Wisdom is profitable to direct; also a highly experienced trader with years of focus on a select # of markets can do things differently/profit wise.
So your answer is "no" It would be interesting to the point of shocking us all if just ONCE you had a real point to make instead of just talking out of your ass. And what a coincidence that you choose to post when the originator of the thread is a newby. Steve
Ignoring the issue of NLP (and modeling and so on and so forth) the PPC is not bad. Even if some of it is "dodgy" I think its dodgy in a "doesnt do anything good" way rather than a does harm way. Its not a bad framework to start examining your approach from and most of what he offers (like the 10pt way to start your day) will help you move towards success. As a side issue, I have found that if I am too calm (meditated) I trade more poorly that if I'm a bit off. I think that some of my inhibitions to bad trading decline when I become too relaxed. At least thats my theory of me - and may apply to no one else